Issue 7 - February 2023

The Sustainable Business Review is the UK's first student-led quarterly magazine producing thought-provoking opinion pieces around green finance, environmental economics and innovation We aim to bridge the gap between corporates and students when discussing sustainability, and want to inspire the next generation of environmentally-driven leaders

We are a team of economists, engineers and business students, and we hope that you find our content insightful and it equips you with the knowledge to help gain a new perspective on our world

Lead Editors

Zak Goldman

Economics Lead

Suhani Agrawal

Economics Lead

Atharva Palve

Finance Lead

Arun Jain

Finance Lead

Aditi Solanki

Innovation Lead

Economics Authors

Jay Kirby

Sarah Aljamal

Adam Curry

About Economics

Explore the interplay between economic theory and the environment. We aim to discuss topics such as inequality, sustainable growth, developing economies, and government policies.

Professional Guests

Professor Tim Benton

Research Director - Chatham House

Paul Sanderson

Founder - Recycling Insights

Adam Anderson

CEO - Innovex Downhole Solutions

Committee

Jack Roycroft-Sherry President

Zaid Nurmamodo

Vice-President (Magazine)

Louise Dugnan

Vice-President (Incubator)

Santhana Arnold

Marketing Director

Rajiv Ghosh

Sponsorship Director

Saisha Ratna Treasurer

Finance Authors

Noor Sayyeda

Edward Hope

Dylan Remmer-Riley

About Finance

Dive into the world of ESG with corporates and financial markets all in one place. We aim to discuss topical issues in transport, energy and cryptocurrency.

Innovation Authors

Ethan White

Leon Hargreaves

Adelina Borta

About Innovation

Contact us to have your firm featured on our magazine

Uncover the importance of innovations in technology and their influence on the carbon economy. We aim to discuss innovative topics and technologies, including blockchain technology, renewable energy, and infrastructure.

On the cover

Our cover page considers the pressing issue of melting glaciers, displaced arctic wildlife and rising sea levels.

Fossil Fuels

Evaluates the implications of coal subsidies on efforts to address climate change , page 3.

Net-Zero

Explores the importance of mobilising climate finance for developing countries , page 14.

Space Sustainability

Investigates the issue of space debris and its impact on sustainability, page 24

It's time to stop this coal-ition: the case for ending coal subsidies

The Road to Financing a Net-Zero Revolution Interview with Paul Sanderson Spurious Sustainability? How the ambiguous definition of ESG is misleading investors and undermining institutions.

Caution to the Windfall: The Impact of Windfall Taxes on Energy Companies Celestial Clean-up: Space Sustainability, Debris and

Q&A with Adam Anderson

Q&A with Paul Sanderson

Q&A with Professor Tim Benton Page

Fossil Fuels

It's time to stop this coal-ition: the case for ending coal subsidies

by Jay Kirby

ALSO IN THIS SECTION

The Path Toward Transitioning to a Circular Economy

by Sarah Aljamal

Loss and Damage

by Adam Curry

It's time to stop this coal-ition: the case for ending coal subsidies

By Jay Kirby

The science is clear: ‘the world cannot stay below the two degree limit if we continue to burn coal.’(Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, 2020) Despite international promises such as the Paris Agreement, subsidies on fossil fuels continue to run rampant in many parts of the world, undermining efforts to protect the planet. The question then remains: why do governments continue to support these outdated energy sources?

Subsidies can take many forms; the WTO lists four separate categories, though a direct transfer of funds to a firm or industry is the most prominent. China is the world’s largest consumer of coal 66% of China’s annual energy consumption is sourced from it (National Bureau of Statistics, 2015) and the most prolific producer, accounting for 47 4% of the world supply in 2014 (BP, 2015) As such, it’s hardly a surprise that the industry is heavily subsidised to a value of $5 8 billion in 2013 alone (International Institute for Climate Impact Research, 2015) That’s enough money to fund 233,000 flights around the entire world!

Justification for these subsidies revolves around supporting China’s rapid growth and industrialisation since the 1980s. As Dr Li of King’s College London explains, “manufacturing has always been the backbone of the Chinese economy [which has] also seen rapid infrastructure construction… therefore, it must rely on a source of energy that is cheaply available.” The IISD predicts that if all fossil fuel subsidies were to be removed, ‘emissions would drop by up to 30% in some countries.’ These subsidies may therefore be directly responsible for the damage being done to China’s landscapes and environment, including ‘coal gangue, coal ash, exhaust emission [and] waste water.’ (Si et al, 2010) In terms of coal mining, official statistics show water wastage at 2.2 billion tons and exhaust gas at 1 7 billion tons, with figures worsening year-on-year This is to speak nothing of the consumption of coal, with estimates based on energy output putting annual Chinese CO2 emissions as high as 5670 million metric tones in 2006 (the year in which China became the most polluting country in the world). (Guan et al, 2008)

Pollution like this massively contributes to rising sea levels (1.5mm per year) and salt water intrusion which threatens to cut tens of millions of Chinese citizens off from drinking water. As such, the question remains of how more sustainable practices can be encouraged worldwide.

Fortunately, Germany provides a welcomed example of a modern, coal-dependent economy moving towards a greener future Previously, Germany was the ‘last major coal-burning country in north-western Europe’ with the nation’s coal plants emitting up to 256 million tonnes of carbon dioxide in 2016 alone. (Cambridge, 2019). As could be expected, this industry was heavily supported by the German government for half a decade with the value of national coal subsidies peaking in 1996 at €6.7 billion (which would be worth just under $12 billion today). Though these subsidies were initially given to keep the industry competitive against alternatives such as imported resources preventing job losses, primarily economists in the mid-2000s claimed that they no longer had any inherent value; one study noted the modern lack of ‘genuine demand for German hard coal,’ the rates of methane these mines produce and the high re-employability of skilled coal workers as factors undermining coal subsidies. (Frondel et al, 2007)

Thankfully, the German government pledged in 2019 to become coal-free by 2030, allocating up to $40 billion to structural aid for affected regions. These reforms are likely to have a tremendous impact on Germany’s emissions in the next decade, with some models predicting that a movement towards a greater reliance on natural gas could reduce methane emissions by up to 55% (Ladage et al, 2021)However, Germany was not always so successful The region of Ruhr, for example, which previously mined up to 80% of Germany’s hard coal has been attempting to diversify into steel for half a century with mixed results, including low economic development and up to 15% unemployment. (Reitzenstein et al, 2021) The primary contributor for this appears to be a lack of sufficient government support. Ruhr was attempting structural change as a reaction to the falling demand for coal, meaning that efforts lacked co-ordination. With the incentive of combating climate change, the government has now stepped in to aid Ruhr rather than hindering their efforts with coal subsidies as you might expect, reforms have been far more successful under the wing of government and a coal-less 2030 for Germany could not have been possible without federal intervention.

References:

Herein lies the main issue with coal subsidisation: if a government that encourages structural change is necessary for the elimination of fossil fuels, a government supporting the continued burning of fossil fuels will categorically fail in this regard. Despite their promises, China cannot meet their Paris agreements without substantive government action to help regions move away from their reliance on coal Only after fossil fuel subsidies are a thing of the past can we look forward to a brighter, greener future

• PotsdamInstituteforClimateImpactResearch(PIK)."Coalexitbenefitsoutweighitscosts."ScienceDaily,23March2020.Availableat:

https://www sciencedaily com/releases/2020/03/200323125603 htm

• InternationalInstituteforSustainableDevelopment “SubsidiestocoalproductioninChina ”GSIReport,December2015

Availableat: https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/subsidies-coal-production-in-china.pdf

• Xiang and Kuang. “Who benefits from China’s coal subsidy policies? A computable partial equilibrium analysis.” Science Direct, February2020.Availableat:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0928765519301186#bib0190.

• You “Analysis: What does China’s coal push mean for its climate goals?” CarbonBrief, 29 March 2022 Available at: https://www carbonbrief org/analysis-what-does-chinas-coal-push-mean-for-its-climategoals/#:~:text=Coal%20is%20widely%20used%20in,total%20energy%20consumption%20in%202021.

• Si,Bi,LiandYang.“EnvironmentalevaluationforsustainabledevelopmentofcoalmininginQijiang,WesternChina.”ScienceDirect,1 March 2010. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166516209002006? casa token=eubOtdgN JwAAAAA:rFHMeOgShvMCjl2Wk-aPyxInIHkyq6ft5wach6xt5Y3QecGAJWXel2vjYrYoz1rZ NE0HR0

• Guan, Hubacek, Weber, Peters, Reiner. “The drivers of Chinese CO2 emissions from 1980 to 2030.” October 2008. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095937800800068X?casa token=M25xs4zzcu0AAAAA:bosmbpc5onCrZ22ETmwKI6Qdsl0kM3i2pXrlE01LU-WJuCSiJgx73Luj1BYLbp36nZMS9I

• “Germany to exit coal by 2038 ” Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership, February 2019 Available at: https://www cisl cam ac uk/resources/sustainability-horizons/february-2019/germany-to-exit-coal-by-2038

• Frondel, Kambell, Schmidt. “Hard coal subsidies: a never ending story?” ScienceDirect, July 2007. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421507000237

• Ladage, Blumenberg, Franke, Bahr, Lutz, Schmidt. “On the climate benefit of a coal-to-gas shift in Germany’s electric power sector” Scientificreports,1June2021 Availableat:https://www nature com/articles/s41598-021-90839-7

• Reitzenstein,Popp,Oei,Brauers,Stognief,Kemfert,Kurwan,Wehnert.“Structuralchangeincoalregionsasaprocessofeconomicand social-ecological transition lessons learned from structural change processes in Germany.” German Environment Agency, 2021. Availableat:https://epub.wupperinst.org/frontdoor/deliver/index/docId/7942/file/7942 Structural Change Processes.pdf

• Visualaids:

• “ChinaCO2emissions”Worldometer,2016 Availableat:https://www worldometers info/co2-emissions/china-co2-emissions/

• Storchmann. “The rise and fall of German hard coal subsidies.” ScienceDirect, July 2005. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S030142150400014X

Q&A

Professor Tim Benton Research Director

Chatham House

What are think tanks and what are their roles in solving global issues such as climate change?

Think tanks are generically nongovernmental organisations where people can do research and thinking about the problems that, depending on which think tank you are talking about, are being faced by society and come up with solutions that might have some degree of impact. Chatham house was setup just after WW1 to help provide a safe space for governments and industries to talk to avoid the sorts of problems and framing issues that led to the conditions that produced the first world war As a former academic myself and Dean at the University of Leeds, coming to a think tank is really interesting because even though I worked across government in an academic role for many years, and therefore had very good networks within government, because Chatham house has been working with governments for around 100 years to outline solutions to problems and identify the problems themselves, most days I have contact with senior government officials either with UK or other governments and brief them in ways academics and institutions can’t. Therefore, for me, as an academic, it’s really a position of privilege because my skills were really about putting together pieces of the jigsaw to paint the big picture, whereas most academics are incentivised to take a small piece of the jigsaw and study it in great depth However, by doing this you don’t see how the whole picture works and how the whole system works So, coming to Chatham house, I have much more policy impact and policy leverage as governments are actively seeking advice on thorny issues and I’m freed from some of the academic institutional constraints; usually you have to be a very deep specialist in a field, alongside writing papers and getting grants, to be

successful whereas at Chatham house it is much more about understanding the big picture and coming up with interesting solutions for these problems. So that is kind of the world of think tanks and Chatham house is about geopolitics and international affairs, of which climate change being an important one. Other think tanks however may focus on things like security, economics or a whole range of different things. Chatham house is quite different from some of the think tanks that get press, in that we are scrupulously independent as a research organization; we don’t have political ideological leanings and we stive to occupy evidence based middle ground We are not a kind of advocacy think tank We are not promoting libertine views as some of the Tufton St think tanks do or we're not kind of driving a pro environmental agenda for the sake of advocacy. What we are actually saying is that if you think about the things that broadly shape international affairs and economics, if you think about risks that come from environmental degradation are becoming so central that they actually now underpin a good chunk of what governments are worrying about. As a result, the group I lead at Chatham house is by far the biggest research group within the house. We cover climate change, energy transition, circular economy, food, land, biodiversity, natural resources and so on The emergence of COVID is made more likely by climate change and environmental change, which has obviously been a huge shock to the economy. Then the war in Ukraine coupled with climate impacts, agriculture now has led to the good price spike. This has contributed to the cost-of-living crisis and the geopolitical situation in Ukraine is exemplifying the way that markets

aren’t working to deliver resource security for households or for society. All of these things’ interact together and I guess mine and my groups job is to try and make sense of how we can transform the economy and politics so that those risks are minimised into the future and our ability to live peacefully on the planet. To answer your question directly, we do a lot of work articulating climate risks and what they mean from an economics, social, political and stability perspective and then we will use this information to try and find pathways to drive out climate change. We regularly brief the Cabinet office, the Treasury alongside foreign Commonwealth Development Office about how all these things interact with an aim to try and solve climate change before it gets out of control, which it is increasingly

What are the specific challenges that your environment and society programme tackles and are their specific ones that are the most difficult to grapple with?

Practically yes but in short no. We’ve got limited capacity so we can only target some things, but if you think about threats to the economy from environmental change you’ve got on one side issues such as COIVD and on the other side droughts and heatwaves and they’re impacts of things such as global supply chains. Alongside this, you have the impact of environmental change on conflict and stability. You have the impact of environmental change on people’s movement and immigration The impacts of climate change on financial flows out of the City of London and the trade environment in general In effect, the risks from environmental change interact at so many levels with the way in which the economy works, that ultimately it comes down to the primary question: ‘How can you build a sustainable and resilient economy in ways that do not threaten livelihoods and wellbeing’s in

some way shape or form?’. There are two principal challenges that come along with this. One is ideological, in the sense that incumbent power is very powerful; the rich protect the interest of the rich; we can see that in the discourse around the new government, energy price caps etc. From a more technical perspective if you think about the way in which the economy works, we have a deeply embedded view that economic growth is good; as we grow the economy more, more people will share in wealth creation. Positive GDP implies exponential growth year on year. If you have exponential growth and its related to the consumption growth, which it is, this implies exponential consumption growth Most of this consumption growth comes from broadly harvesting natural resources in some way shape or form. Looking ahead, if you have a finite resource base with exponential consumption growth from that resource space it doesn’t matter however we choose to shape it, there will be some sort of Malthusian crunch and we are starting to live through that now. The demand for goods and resources exceeds our ability to supply those goods and resources. Then you end up in a situation where everything starts falling apart. When thinking about climate change, pollution, land degradation, biodiversity loss or the emergences of pests and diseases, these are all symptoms of pushing the natural resource base too hard. Fundamentally to have a sustainable economy, we have to think not just about structuring our economic thinking around GDP but instead structure it around thinking about societal well-being. This means internalizing the broad externalities that come from the markets; this requires us to restructure markets, put incentives and disincentives in the right place. No longer allowing profit making at the expense of environmental degradation to supply goods for consumption for short

term gain. There’s a lot of big stuff kind of encompassed in this whole environmental sustainability agenda. This of course flows into geopolitics, as I said earlier. As the world becomes more driven by economic growth, less driven by international cooperation, it becomes more competitive, as we extract more and more natural resources and change the climate. It becomes more volatile. Further, all of these things interact together to create more geopolitical tension and looking ahead you can see post-Ukraine, different multilateral sets of alliances, a fractured world with trading blocks of broadly western and eastern nations and a whole range of other things that again will shape the economy If we carry on driving the economy hard, we just get into a vicious circle where everything starts really being under pressure. Current economic and political thinking, in the broad sense, isn’t accepting those risks. We as people and political systems, probably won’t accept them until something radical happens and we go through some degree of painful structural change that will be forced upon us. Because of incumbent power dynamics, we don’t want to tackle it up front. There’s a lot of green washing and marginal change. Just look at climate change; we’ve known since the 70’s that we’re on course for where we are now. Emissions are not going down; they’re still going up We are not going to tackle this issue until the world bites back and forces us to tackle this issue because it’s too difficult, I think from a political and economic position to do so.

As COP27 is fast approaching, what is Chatham house realistically expecting or hoping to come out of the conference and then how do you think leaders will view fossil fuel financing given Europe’s current energy crisis.?

There was a huge expectation before COP26 in Glasgow that we would make greater global efforts to tackle climate change. There was a lot of positive noise from COP26, but not as much action as we need to close the emissions gap. The gap between where we’re heading and what we’re willing to do about it. If anything, the war in Ukraine and subsequent fallout is undermining the ability of governments to act in a kind of business-as-usual sense There’s quite a lot, on a global basis, of backtracking on commitments or trying to soften commitments You only have to look at the kind of political dynamics in the UK, opening new licences for fracking and fossil fuel extraction. I think ReesMogg said ‘We need to use every drop of oil in the North Sea’. If that is a more kind of generic view from governments that today’s costs of living crisis is more important than the stability of the world, then we are in quite a difficult place because the longer we delay action, the more severe the action will have to be for us to live within an equitable climate. With respect to COP27, there will be a lot of discussion, about energy costs and energy availability. There's quite a push from some countries to drive forward transition to gas out of oil and coal because it's seen as a kind of transition fuel COP28 in UAE, of course is going to have quite a strong fossil fuel component to it Lots of countries in sub-Saharan Africa have got access to fossil fuel resources and, from their economic growth perspective, if there’s a market for them then it’s a good way of them a getting an economic value for development. So, there are a lot of wins against taking ambitious climate action, and I suspect there will be a kind of

lukewarm response on the global level from society, civil society, the NGO community and citizens about the amount of progress that has been made. I hope that whilst keeping 1.5 alive, the strap line of Glasgow is still theoretically possible. I hope it will still be theoretically possible after COP 27, but I think it will raise a whole lot of issues about the role of gas in the future, the speed with which decarbonisation can happen and the other big thing that I think will be talked about, because obviously COP is in Africa, is who pays and the whole kind of loss and damage agenda. Should the rich world, who have largely created the problem to date, be doing much more to help the Pakistan’s of this world? Two months ago, there was excessive heat and now excessive flooding; many countries in the global south just do not have the revenue to adapt to what we know is coming. They don’t have the easy access to the ability to mitigate. I remember speaking to the Minister of Trade in Indonesia around 7 years ago who said: ‘For us as a country having rainforests does not contribute to our economy. If we convert the rainforests into palm oil plantations, we get rich”. The implications of that, which is the same for fossil fuels in Nigeria, is that unless we can provide revenue streams from the global north to compensate for not drilling oil or not cutting down rainforests, they will do that in the name of competitive economic development, in a rational sense But given the global cost of living crisis, given global inflation, the global north has no willingness or ability to give a trillion dollars a year to the global south. That famed 100 billion that was going to be on the table post Paris still hasn’t appeared. So that’s a drop in the ocean compared to what is needed. In this current economic atmosphere, it’s not going to happen. It’s a bit of a gloomy outlook despite the fact that lots of economic evidence has been

developed over the last years that the long-term benefits of transforming economies far outweigh the shortterm costs. But the short-term costs have to be paid for an if you’ve got no money in your pocket, whatever the long term benefits are, you can’t to it. That’s the kind of situation that the world is in at the moment.

Who should instantiate change? Should it be governments, companies or individuals who should be the ones getting change to happen?

There’s a lot of discourse that it is governments, business or citizens changing their behaviour but of course it’s none of them individually, its all of them together The thing that’s most obvious to me in the job that I’m doing, as opposed to when I was an academic, is that the political economy, the power dynamic of who’s actually in charge and who benefits from decisions is a major blocker of action. It’s a three-way relationship. Governments set the rules of the market, so design the structure of the market. Market actors act within those rules to make a profit and citizens licence politicians by electing them. Citizens also licence the market by buying the goods. So, you can’t have change by industry alone as they’ll make marginal changes with maximising profit as a motive at all times. The incumbent power dynamics will be that if they’re making a profit now, they’re not going to out that at risk to change things Politicians are leaning ever more towards just letting the market to do its thing, because that’s the way for the rich to get richer. Citizens are not ambivalent, but if you think about the electoral cycle in most countries; everything gets bundled up five years over five years into a question.

Do we go to the left or do we go to the right? In most countries, although some do, you don’t have an election or referendum very often. How should we tackle climate change? How should we tackle food system transformation? How should we deal with biodiversity? You end up with tribal politics every five years, which doesn’t really get to the hearts of these issues from a citizen perspective. Theoretically, it’s that citizens licence government to change the market and then the market makes a profit within the rule’s dynamic, but until all of those come into alignment then there will not be the appetite for significant change. Until something sufficiently bad happens where incumbent power is threatened Some of the chains that have been locking our current system get loosened and then we can start with not a blank sheet of paper, but more blank sheets of paper. At the moment we are flying this big jet plane of the economy and talking about changing it into a hand glider, or something like that as we are flying along. Of course, that’s a very difficult thing to do. If that jet planes crashes, it’s much easier to pull together the components to redesign the plane. But whilst its flying with all of the kind of problems of us being on that journey, it’s very difficult to transform. I however wouldn’t do this job if I didn’t have faith that humanity ultimately was not going to drive itself over the edge of a cliff. I think we’re getting close to the edge of the cliff. We might end up with the front two wheels hanging over the edge of the cliff, but I do think the benefits of us doing things in a radically different way are so enormous that ultimately, we kind of got to do it Maybe that’s just waiting for you guys to come into politics or take over as CEO of multinational organisations and change from inside. But I can’t believe, given the evidence, your generation are going to licence the continuation of the system that my generation and previous generations have put into place?

The Path Toward Transitioning to a Circular Economy

By Sarah Aljamal

In the 18th century, there was a fertile ground for Britain to become one of the first countries to industrialise While this industrial revolution led to an increase in economic growth, it laid the groundwork for forming what is now known as a ‘linear economy’, which has massive negative consequences on the environment, ecology, economy, and society. The linear economy is the current ‘take-make-dispose’ model of the economy in which a business uses the earth’s natural finite resources to produce goods and services for consumer use. When the products’ life cycle ends, the products are discarded, and new ones are produced using the same finite resources. The problem with this model is that it is abstract. It views the economy as a machine where resources are the inputs, and goods and services are the output. ( Ellen MacArthur Foundation). The main goal is to increase efficiency using as few inputs as possible. It fails to recognise that the economy, society, and environment are inherently interconnected. This separation from the broader natural environmental is what makes this linear economy unsustainable; it completely dismisses the effects that increased production can have on the environment, like increases in greenhouse gas emissions which contribute to global warming

Because of this, a new type of economy is being created, a ‘circular economy’. This model is based on three core principles: designing out waste and pollution, keeping products and materials in use, and regenerating natural systems. (Ellen Mac Arthur foundation). In nature, there is no waste, because it is a system so perfectly designed and so coherently organised. A cherry tree, for example, is part of a much bigger, natural ecosystem. When it blossoms, it doesn’t only produce new generations of cherry trees but also provides nutrients for the microorganisms in the soil. The ‘waste’, or output of the cherry tree became an input for other organisms in the natural ecosystem. This is what the circular economy strives to do, to eliminate waste and mimic the natural environment, a phenomenon more commonly known as biomimicry.

Products and materials should be kept in the economy for as long as possible either by being reused, repaired, or remanufactured It’s estimated that a circular economy can save 700 million USD worth of annual material in the fast-moving consumer industry, reduce carbon emissions by 48% by 2030, and cause a 550 billion USD reduction in healthcare costs associated with the food sector. (Ellen Mac Arthur Foundation).

Unfortunately, trying to reach a 100% level of sustainability currently might be counterproductive for businesses; the price of implementing the core principles of the circular economy may be higher than the value of the materials recovered. (Circular. Academy). Additionally, while the circular economy is an industrial model that aims to overcome resource scarcity and decouple economic performance from environmental degradation, it is a model that is still flawed. As emphasized by Hobson and Linch, (Hobson, Lynch, no date) cited in (Pla-Julian and Guevara, 2019, p.68), until now, ‘frameworks for, and analysis of, the CE have arguably side-stepped detailed considerations of its broader socio-economic implications, being all-but silent on what a CE society might look like.’ Hence, it might be beneficial to implement ideas from the ethics of care if we want an economy that both increases consumption and production in a sustainable way, and takes into consideration the socio-economic dimensions of the economy The ethics of care is a feminist approach to ethics, which opposes traditional moral theories and focuses on emotions like care and compassion.

This approach may be beneficial when designing the circular economy because it tackles crucial invisibilities that are the roots of the dual crisis of environment and care. (Pla-Julian and Guevara, 2019, p.68). Using the ethics of care philosophy, the circular economy should implement principles that show care for the vital systems of nature and households The ethics of care is an inherently feminist theory which recognizes the gendered relations of power in the context of change towards a more sustainable economy. (Pla-Julian and Guevara, 2019, p.70). Hence, it could be a useful approach to contribute to ending gender discrimination.

Moreover, the circular economy model completely dismisses the social sustainability element. The model focuses on refurbishing and remanufacturing, which means that there will be increased demand for human labour. This may increase production and employment; however, these processes are often not standardised, which puts workers’ safety at risk. (Circular. Academy). Additionally, there are not yet any internationally recognised standards to assess circularity performance, although there are measurements tools to assess the circularity of one organisation. (EMF, 2014) cited in (Circular. Academy).

References:

Despite all these challenges, the transition to a circular economy seems inevitable when evaluating the current state of the environment. It’s expected that the transition will be met with resistance, so it will require the collaboration of businesses, consumers, and the government. While it is challenging, the path towards the circular economy will be the first step towards an environmentally, ecologically, and economically sustainable world with zero carbon and zero waste

Becker, GS ( 2009) A treatise on the family Enlarged Edition Google Books Available at: https://books google co uk/books?

hl=en&lr=&id=NLB1Ty75DOIC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&ots=plDghtTVvo&sig=itEitvWnSZunAsJNTSZM4V-o06E&redir esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false ( Accessed: 30 November 2022). Circular. Academy. Circular Economy: Critics and Challenges. Available at: https://www.circular.academy/circular-economy-critics-and-challenges/ ( Accessed at: November 26, 2022). Ellen MacArthur Foundation. Circular Economy in Detail. Available at: https://archive.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/explore/the-circular-economy-in-detail?

gl=1*drl0nd* ga*ODQ2NDkzMjk4LjE2Njg5OTQwMjg.* ga

V32N675KJX*MTY3MDIyNTQzNS4xMi4xLjE2NzAyMjYxMjguNDkuMC4w& ga=2.153704507.243179456.1670225435846493298.1668994028& gac=1.53052122.1670225435.CjwKCAiAp7GcBhA0EiwA9U0mtt-XEKN-seq3XUlCGgg-iTjOFohTyAVLUFLZZka7Y1aKq8creg7vbRoCjNEQAvD BwE. ( Accessed at: November 23, 2022).

Ellen MacArthur Foundation. What’s the circular economy?. Available at: https://archive.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/circular-economy/what-is-the-circular-economy?

gl=1*1ibllfg* ga*ODQ2NDkzMjk4LjE2Njg5OTQwMjg.* ga V32N675KJX*MTY3MDIyNTQzNS4xMi4xLjE2NzAyMjc4NzEuMTMuMC4w& ga=2.111285639.243179456.1670225435846493298.1668994028& gac=1.56870488.1670225435.CjwKCAiAp7GcBhA0EiwA9U0mtt-XEKN-seq3XUlCGgg-iTjOFohTyAVLUFLZZka7Y1aKq8creg7vbRoCjNEQAvD BwE. ( Accessed at: November 21, 2022)

Ellen Mac Arthur Foundation Recycling and the circular economy: What’s the difference? Available at: https://ellenmacarthurfoundation org/articles/recycling-and-the-circular-economywhats-the-difference ( Accessed at: November 23, 2022)

Ellen Mac Arthur Foundation Systems and the Circular Economy Available at: https://archive ellenmacarthurfoundation org/explore/systems-and-the-circular-economy? ga=2 107633665 243179456 1670225435-846493298 1668994028& gac=1 220826346 1670225435 CjwKCAiAp7GcBhA0EiwA9U0mtt-XEKN-seq3XUlCGggiTjOFohTyAVLUFLZZka7Y1aKq8creg7vbRoCjNEQAvD BwE& gl=1*1u6j0zh* ga*ODQ2NDkzMjk4LjE2Njg5OTQwMjg * ga V32N675KJX*MTY3MDIyNTQzNS4xMi4xLjE2NzAyMjgwODQuNDc uMC4w ( Accessed at: November 25, 2022)

Isabel Pla Julian, Sandra Guevara ( 2019) ’ Is circular economy the key to transitioning towards sustainable development? Challenge from the perspective of care ethics’, ‘ Futures’, Volume 105 , p 67-77 https://reader elsevier com/reader/sd/pii/S0016328718303239?

token=ACDA1615A288AD57EFD746802018EFA0873B4D1596B1BCBB3623BE7E8F347F265DBE37B9DBD0BAF1276B802B4420998B&originRegion=eu-west-1&originCreation=20221204173044]

Kersty Hobson and Nicholas Lynch ‘ Diversifying and de-growing the circular economy: Radical social transformation in a resource-scarce world’, ‘Futures’, Feature 82, p 15-25 https://reader elsevier com/reader/sd/pii/S0016328716300246?

token=4122F1D2613CF45D06C28B529EBBE1F9301EBFBA0B68DAFE11BAD92FE7A14BDE59368F69DABC15BBF21B930B79126475&originRegion=eu-west-1&originCreation=20221204170605

The World Bank( 2021) 2021: The Year in Climate in 5 numbers Available at:https://www worldbank org/en/news/feature/2021/12/16/2021-the-year-in-climate-in-5-numbers ( Accessed: December 4, 2022)

Loss and Damage

By Adam Curry

Loss and damage is “the actual and/or potential manifestation of impacts associated with climate change in developing countries that negatively affect human and natural systems” (ICCCAD, 2015). It was propelled to the forefront of international political and economic discussions in the 1992 United Nations Framework on Climate Change. Now, nearly 30 years later, we are finally starting to address this controversial topic with real solutions. At the COP27 climate summit it was agreed among developed nations to create a fund to help solve this issue.

What is Loss and Damage?

Climate change has a multiplicity of effects across the globe, affecting things such as weather, sea levels and biodiversity. The damages caused by these changes are what is meant by the term loss and damage It refers to both negative impacts on human societies as well as the natural world, encasing both economic and noneconomic impacts

Examples of Loss and Damage

Some recent examples of loss and damage can be found in Pakistan where in early 2022 extreme flooding swept across the region causing $15bn in economic losses (World Bank, 2022). Studies into this rainfall concluded It was 75% greater due to the 1.2 degrees increase in temperatures in the region, caused by climate change (World Weather Attribution, 2022). Furthermore, the intensity of rainfall also increased by 50% due to climate changes, strongly contributing to flash flooding and increased loss and damage. Moreover, long term impacts are also prevalent, a pivotal example being in the Maldives. Sea level rise caused by climate change is predicted to leave the island chain underwater by the year 2100 (World Bank, 2010). With the potential of a whole country being wiped out in the near future, this highlights the need for immediate actions and solutions in this area

Additionally, there is also the risk of moral hazard associated with loss and damage Moral hazard is an economic principal where there is a lack of incentive to guard against a risk, as the economic agent is shielded from its consequences.

Loss and damage is textbook moral hazard as developed nations use more fossil fuels and consume more goods and services, hence producing more carbon emissions and driving climate change. As these impact lesser developed nations at the same or worse levels than developed nations are protected from the consequences of their actions, thus causing overproduction of carbon emissions.

What are the solutions?

This topic is especially prevalent due to the first ever solutions being agreed upon to try and tackle this issue at the COP27 climate summit. It was agreed upon to create a fund, in which less developed nations can draw from to help mitigate the negative impacts from loss and damage. However, many people aren’t content with this solution, although it is the first small step in the right direction.

The most obvious solutions would involve policies stopping climate change; however, many people argue that is unattainable without major economic damage. Others argue that payment after the damage is too little, too late, many people point towards investment in mitigating technologies as a better solution to aid developing nations.

Below is a graph from Byrnes and Surminski (2019), highlighting all the approaches which may aid in this area.

Here we can see the different levels at which solutions can be implemented, highlighting the fact that this is a solvable issue. This also highlights the fact that there isn’t a singular defined approach, and that experimentation and variation of strategies may be needed to tackle loss and damage

Another broadly agreed upon principle which can be utilised to solve the issue of loss and damage is insurance In developed nations 50% of all negative outcomes are covered by insurance in comparison to only 15% in less developed nations. Increasing access and affordability of insurance may be a better way to help protect these vulnerable nations from the worst economic impacts of climate change. Although loss and damage is a complex topic, this demonstrates that there are many avenues which policymakers may attempt, which at least theoretically can mitigate some of the damages of climate change on developing nations, and it will be interesting to watch the results of the fist actions agreed upon in COP27 play out in the near future.

References:

World Bank (2022) - https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2022/10/28/pakistan-flood-damages-and-economic-lossesover-usd-30-billion-and-reconstruction-needs-over-usd-16-billion-newassessme#:~:text=The%20assessment%20estimates%20total%20damages,reach%20about%20USD%2015.2%20billion World Weather Attribution (2022) - https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/wp-content/uploads/Pakistan-floods-scientificreport.pdf

Byrnes and Surminski (2019) - https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/publication/addressing-the-impacts-of-climate-changethrough-an-effective-warsaw-international-mechanism-on-loss-and-damage/ ICCCAD (2015) - http://icccad.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Defininglossanddamage-Final.pdf

World Bank (2010) - https://www worldbank org/en/news/feature/2010/04/06/climate-change-in-the-maldives

The Road to Financing a Net-Zero Revolution

by Noor Sayyeda

ALSO IN THIS SECTION

Spurious Sustainability?

by Edward Hope

Throwing Caution to the Windfall

by Dylan Remmer-Riley

The Road to Financing a Net-Zero Revolution

By Noor Sayyeda

The aftermath of the latest United Nations Climate Conference (COP27) has made one thing very clear - the importance of climate finance mobilisation for developing nations has never been greater. By the end of the decade, developing countries, excluding China, will require $1 trillion annually in external financing to mitigate the impacts of climate change. Yet, how can this be delivered if, at the Copenhagen summit in 2009, rich countries failed to commit $100 billion to poor countries by 2020 for climate finance? Approximately $3 8 trillion in annual investment flows will be required by public and private organizations worldwide to achieve 'net-zero,' and only 16% of climate finance needs are currently being met. (BCG Research, 2022).

COVID-19 and other external shocks have weakened the ability of developing countries to finance the goal of carbon neutrality To make matters worse, vulnerable countries have faced losses of $525 billion in the past two decades due to climate change (V20, 2022). In these circumstances, there are pressures on the MDB system (multilateral development bank system) to prioritize large-scale investments in projects where global cooperation is required. (Center for Global Development Report, 2022). The latest G20 report concluded that MDBs are being prudent, preserving their AAA issuer ratings, which means that MDBs can lend a lot more without having to go through a capital increase of about ‘several hundreds of billions of dollars over the medium-term’ (Expert Panel on MDBs’ Capital Adequacy Frameworks, 2022). MDBs like the World Bank need organisational and operational changes to scale up mobilisation as well as incentivise countries to tackle challenges through climate-related investments (Center for Global Development, 2022).

Innovative financial instruments such as green bonds and sustainability-linked bonds are gaining popularity among institutional investors like insurance companies and pension funds. In particular, green bonds are being used to finance climate-related projects and the green bond industry is growing rapidly, with the market valued at $2 trillion as of 2022 However, within the realm of private finance, there are challenges; these include a lack of investable green projects, poor climate information infrastructure, and ineffective carbon pricing (IMF, 2022). Figure 1 showcases the disparity between the data disclosure by major corporations in emerging markets and advanced economies; Indonesia, India and Thailand are lagging on data disclosure, notably compared to other EMs, where the average ESG disclosure score is 40. Developing global sustainability standards through enhanced data disclosure

requirements would allow investors to price in risk. As a result, this can create a viable, sustainable finance market, particularly in emerging markets (IMF, 2022).

essential to unlocking the necessary capital. Several serious suggestions have been offered in the most recent report from an expert group on climate finance headed by economists Vera Songwe and Nicholas Stern, some of them which have been discussed in this article. We are nearing a humanitarian crisis and it is obvious that leaders around the world must collaborate immediately.

References:

Independent think tank leaders issue call to action for MDB reform. (n.d.). ODI: Think Change. Retrieved December 14, 2022

“WTF” is the big question at COP27. (2022, November 16). Financial Times. There is a better way to help poor countries fight climate change (n d ) The Economist

New Rockefeller Foundation and BCG Research Reveals Size of Gap in Climate Finance. (n.d.). The Rockefeller Foundation. Retrieved December 14, 2022

The reduction in financing costs, which is a barrier to lowcarbon investment, can be done through concessional loans; these loans are offered generously at below-market rates. Africa, for example, needs cheap energy solutions to meet its development goals and according to the IEA, power generation capacity will need to increase ten-fold by 2065 to meet projected electricity demands with 7 out of the 10 most vulnerable countries subject to climate change lying in the African subcontinent. The concern of accumulating more public debt is a major concern when moving economies toward more green projects, especially in this era of rising interest rates. Oxfam research has revealed that loans are dominating over 70 per cent of provision ($48.6 billion) of public climate finance, adding to the debt crisis across developing countries. The South African Government is right to be concerned about the level of public debt from borrowing to finance the $8.5 trillion transition away from coal. These funds come from the United Kingdom, the European Union, the United States, France, and Germany through concessional loans, which make up 54% of the climate finance package However, less than 3% of the deal is of grants, and the remaining 43% comes from commercial loans and credit guarantees. Overall, there is a greater need for political collaboration between developing countries to form and deliver energy-transition plans, while developed countries should provide financial support, through concessional loans or cheaper solutions from the private sector.

Ultimately, to achieve a net-zero revolution, greater participation from MDBs, as well as more cooperation between developed and developing countries, would be

Better Climate Financing Depends on Better Data. (2022, November 2). BCG Global.

Tan, S -L (n d ) IMF chief says rich countries alone can “never close” the funding gap for climate change CNBC

South Africa warns $8 5bn climate package risks fuelling debt burden (2022, November 4). Financial Times.

A Green Investment Treaty Can Help Close the Climate Funding Gap. (n.d.). News.bloomberglaw.com. Retrieved December 14, 2022

Center for Global Development [CGD] (2022) Reforming the World Bank and Multilateral Development Banks to Meet

Shared Global Challenges Independent Think Tank Leaders Issue

Rowling, M (2022, November 10) Explainer: What’s the plan to fill the climate finance gap for poor nations? Reuters.

Finance for climate action: scaling up investment for climate and development. (n.d.). Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment Retrieved December 14, 2022

Aragon I, Njewa ED (2022) Urgent but overlooked: a spotlight on the longterm finance goal of the Paris Agreement London: International Institute for Environment and Development

Q&A

Recycling Insights

Paul Sanderson Founder

The recycling industry has been tackling the root problem of linear consumption with increasing momentum. Policymakers and players, both locally and globally, have been promoting the reuse of resources by improving waste management systems and enforcing legislation that financially incentivises recycling. It has not all been smooth sailing for the industry. In 2017, China ceased importing recycled materials due to large amounts deemed as biohazardous or too dirty. With China being the largest importer of these commodities, consumer market prices soared. Structural changes to the global supply chains have forced the developed world to invest in processing facilities, such as new paper mills, and redomesticate production This consequence has the desirable effect of pushing for a circular economy. An endless cycle of diverting recyclables from landfill and producing a new use for them, in order to expand their life cycle is the ultimate solution.

Covid’s impact on the market prices of recycling materials

According to Paul Sanderson, When COVID hit, everybody panicked but new patterns were quickly established. In some European countries, everything was stopped apart from absolutely essential services. At first, It was decided that recycling waste wasn’t an essential service. However, in the UK, we took a different approach and decided that recycling waste was an essential service. So recycling bins were still getting collected here and the material was still

being recycled

He further shared his perspective on Europe and Asia. These places had banned collections, and the mills and recycling facilities were still open, so they were still trying to make the packaging. The UK was seen as a great place to buy from because we had material available. People were buying

stuff, so market prices went really high. He claimed that the UK has gone higher recently across the board because the rest of the world realised, whether it was food or medicine bottles, they needed to keep global supply chains working because they’ve become so reliant on recycled materials. He concluded this topic by stating that the COVID period was a good time for the recycling industry in terms of market prices for recycled commodities. All the packaging from online orders was certainly getting recycled. Cardboard is a really easy material to recycle, so the fact that there was so much around was very good It’s quick to recycle and it’s simple

Factors affecting the market in 2023

Sanderson’s expertise states that energy will affect the recycling market next year. A lot of recycling facilities are big energy users, so whether it’s a paper mill or a metal smelter, it needs a huge amount of energy. The UK is facing huge energy costs because of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Therefore, energy is going to be the biggest one. He thinks that there won’t be anything similar to China bans in the near future. Other countries like Vietnam, China, to some degree, and the United States are developing circular economies. With new legislation and proposals, the secular economy is going to get even bigger in 2023 Anything can happen, as seen with COVID and the Ukraine war It’s always events that have the biggest influence on any sort of market. He further shares the correlation between energy prices and recycled materials:

Paul Sanderson

"We have started to see prices coming down because of the higher energy costs. There’s less material around as well and less demand for material because people are buying less stuff because they’re scared. Even with the energy cap in the UK, it is still double what it was a year ago for people to pay their energy bills. It means people are buying less on Amazon, in shops, and going out to eat less.”

Paul Sanderson’s take on China

He predicts that China won’t be loosening its ban completely. They ran out of metals, so they had no choice but to loosen their restrictions. With China’s Belt and Road policy, the idea is that they are expanding their influence to nations within reach We have seen huge investments by Chinese companies in Malaysia, Vietnam, Thailand, and Myanmar, who have built paper mills there. Instead of material going to China, it now goes to those countries and then goes to China. With plastics, the Basel Convention has brought in some more rules on international trade. We tend to see more plastic recycling capacity happening. In the UK and Europe, we mainly see the bottles and plastic film being recycled here and then sent over as a product to Asia to be manufactured. That is how the Chinese ban has affected the market.

Has any other global crisis impacted the recycling market as significantly as COVID?

“I think the biggest one we have had was the financial crisis in 2008, prices just tanked at that point ” He continued by saying that the Evergreen Ship that got stuck in the Suez Canal, affected global supply chains significantly. Goods that were supposed to come over here didn’t end up coming here. That had a big impact on the availability of material and availability of containers to ship the material back to the manufacturers

abroad. Paul Anderson predicts the energy crisis is going to be the next one that is going to have a significant impact. If people are buying less stuff, there’s going to be less to recycle."

In terms of price volatility, what are the riskiest materials to trade now, and do you offer that expertise to your subscribers?

The recycling insights founder states that it’s not the material that is the riskiest, but the packaging recovery notes. Essentially, every time somebody puts a ton of packaging on the market, they’ve got to pay for a ton of material to be recycled He reveals that the UK has had that since the late 1990s and that’s only a UK thing In the UK, it’s traded and it’s become hugely volatile They get data every month, especially every quarter. When that data comes out, that is when the market really trades based on whether we meet our targets or not. S

More about the company: Recycling Insights Recycling Insights provides data using artificial intelligence and machine learning for the recycling sector.

See: www.recyclinginsights.com

Customer demographics: multinational waste management companies and recyclers, whose bins you have probably seen around the streets, to smaller family businesses. Also, some local authorities, shipping lines, and one or two retailers are subscribed The business is predominantly in the UK, but it does have some international subscribers who have operations in the UK.

Paul Sanderson

The company utilises AI and machine learning to provide their subscribers with real-time market prices and forecasted prices of recycled materials, which is essential in helping scrap traders plan when to buy and sell to optimise their revenue.

Spurious Sustainability?

How the ambiguous definition of ESG is misleading investors and undermining institutions.

By Edward Hope

The evolution of the acronym ESG, starting in the 1960s, has been a long and industrious one. It first emerged as ‘socially responsible investing, subsequently evolving into the modern-day ESG term we know today, in 2004. Its true meaning, however, is lost in a litany of misuses and incorrect interpretations, which means that those who do care about its implications, as a term and concept, feel the need to preface their use of it with intensifiers. The results of this are that an accurate, consistent level of sustainability and social justice is never conveyed to investors, and often, surprisingly, the truth is irrelevant to investors anyway

ESG, meaning Environmental, Social and Governance is a widely spread term in both the corporate world and society overall. It is mostly used to describe a style of investing that is environmentally sustainable, socially just, and considers the style in which firms are governed. Institutional investors wishing to align with more environmentally friendly agendas, often place investments in funds with ESG ratings, which rank firms accordingly.

Since 2010, the acronym has become more widely adopted, and despite becoming more visible, to many, it has lost its core meaning due to ambiguity in standards of implementation in ratings and investment. The fact that more than 50 per cent of European funds are labelled as light green or dark green (Financial Times, 2022), is just one example of how this ‘pay to win’ industry works.

ESG evaluation agencies such as MSCI, Sustainalytics and Refinitiv reduce the risks associated with litigation and administration in the future often solely using publicly available data. Not only do these offer a comparison between competing firms, it also offers a sign of intent, in the long run, of adequate corporate social responsibility to shareholders, rather than just a significant competitive advantage in the short run However, the truth is that ESG ratings for individual firms and funds can be inaccurate, and this misleads investors whilst unfairly distorting public opinion surrounding companies and markets. Furthermore,

rating systems that exaggerate the overall sustainability of firms,tocreatevarianceinthemarketandencouragemore sales and revenue, can leave firms and investors overconfident and over-satisfied with their operations and portfolio’s true ESG performance. The fact that there is no regulation enforcing the publication of ESG ratings in the UK, means that firms without ratings can fly under the radar, leading to market ratings that are too optimistic regardingESG

According to Andrieux (2022), 60% of consumers are not aware of what exactly ESG ratings and assessments entail and that only 25% of investors choose their portfolio with ESG factors in mind ‘Principled self-interest’ is considered the main motivation behind few who do consider ESG investing as per Mohanan (2002). Furthermore, there are suggestions that labels in regard to ESG being sufficient, are all that is required by the majority of investment managers and clients. This begs the question as to whether investors are aware of the true impact of their investments on the environment and society, and whether superficial social pressure is degrading the importance of environmental sustainability and effective social justice.

The future of ESG as a core aspect of investment management is under threat from lack of uptake, inaccurate and inconsistent

The Global Sustainable Investment Alliance (GSIA), Meritz Sercurities Korea)

ratings, investor apathy and ignorance. The question to ask is what can be done to protect the vital role ESG ratings and CSR plays in keeping corporations and institutions accountable for their choices. One answer to this question could be the wider introduction of financial advisers, which previously have only been available to those investing large sums of money. Research has found that 70% of non-ESG investors have not had a discussion with a financial adviser about sustainable investing while in contrast, 72% of ESG investors have used financial advisory services (Andrieux, 2022 ). Whilst this trend may simply show that those with higher incomes have more freedom to trade off socially and environmentally sustainable investing with inflation-offsetting returns, it could also show that when confronted with the true facts of investing, individuals do actually select portfolios with stronger ESG elements.

References

Gunthrie, J. & Moore, E. (2022) “EU fund managers: ESG funds confused by 50 shades of green”, Financial Times Lex Column, 5/11/22 edition Available at: https://www.ft.com/content/3655eb18-4c54-4472-970fcd571b76f8bc (Accessed: 03/12/22).

Monahan, Michael. (2002) “The Ethics of Socially Responsible Investing.” Business & Professional Ethics Journal, Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27801288. (Accessed 04/12/22).

Andrieux, Jean-Baptiste (2022) “Most investors unaware of ESG, finds report” MoneyMarketing Journal, Available at: https://www moneymarketing co uk/news/most-investorsunaware-of-esg/ (Accessed 03/12/22)

MSCI (2022) “The Evolution of ESG Investing” MSCI Website Available at: https://www msci com/esg-101-what-isesg/evolution-of-esginvesting#:~:text=The%20practice%20of%20ESG%20investing,the %20South%20African%20apartheid%20regime. (Accessed: 03/12/22).

Throwing Caution to the Windfall: The Impact of Windfall Taxes on Energy Companies

By Dylan Remmer-Riley

For years, many green activists and left-wing politicians have called for a windfall tax on energy companies. Ed Miliband, the former Labour Leader, stated in May: “Another day, another oil and gas company making billions in profits, and yet another day when the Government shamefully refuses to act with a windfall tax to bring down bills.” Needless to say, those in favour of this measure were delighted when the incumbent Chancellor, Rishi Sunak, announced a 25% “Energy Profits Levy” earlier this year The principal argument against the government levy revolves around the potential side effects on the wider economy. In November, David Bunch (Head of UK Shell) indicated the company would “have to evaluate each project on a case-by-case basis” as the levy would lead to Shell having “less to

invest”. However, taxing the profits of energy companies is a Europe-wide measure. This follows Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and wider aims by governments to redistribute wealth more evenly across their populations. (BBC 2022a), (UK Government 2022)

Windfall or Wonderful?

A windfall tax is a levy imposed by a government on a company or sector which has benefitted from excessively high profits. British Petroleum (BP) has seen a 37% rise in its share price over the last year. This is remarkable considering the UK economy shrunk by 0.2% in the third quarter of 2022. As the image below demonstrates, oil and gas firms are set to break profit records. (CNN 2022)

Greenpeace UK’s Phillip Evans supports the windfall tax. He said: “By using a big chunk of the bloated profits that Shell, BP, and others are raking in… the Government could start to really tackle the climate and cost-of-living crises simultaneously” (Guardian 2022a)

The Guardian’s Financial Editor, Nils Pratley, believes the windfall tax “would not explode BP’s precious ‘longterm financial framework’”. The size of the big oil and gas firms protects them from any measures imposed by the UK government. Although investment conditions may be unfavourable, the reality is that this is the case across much of the Western world. Additionally, the UK is already “one of the most generous fiscal regimes for oil and gas producers”. A study by ‘Paid to Pollute’ highlights that between 2016 and 2020, oil and gas companies received £13.6 billion in subsidies. (Guardian 2022b)

The UK's Approach

The government currently allows energy firms to reclaim 91p for every £1 spent on new oil and gas infrastructure, however, it is not all sunshine and rainbows. Following Chancellor Jeremy Hunt’s announcement that the ‘Energy Profits Levy’ will be raised from 25% to 35%, TotalEnergies has announced a withdrawal in their UK investment. The French company will cut £100m in spending in the North Sea. This move will have a detrimental impact on both the local Scottish and wider British economies. The Scottish Government put out a statement saying: “This decision highlights the fiscal and economic turmoil caused by the UK government is already having very real implications for Scottish industry” This presents a clear opportunity for energy companies. Questions will arise internally as to whether it is worth investing in the UK, or prioritising projects in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. (BBC 2022b)

This is a common theme across the EU, as well. Jukka Leskela, the Managing Director of Finnish Energy, fears Finland’s 33% windfall tax will deter necessary investments into the energy sector. He stated: “Firms must be able to continue their investments so that we can get past the energy crisis” (Euractiv 2022). Elsewhere in Scandinavia, Equinor’s (Norway’s state-owned energy company) bosses are taking this scepticism one step further. The Norwegian company are considering scrapping the Rosebank Project. Rosebank is a large oil and gas field in the Shetland Islands. The project is expected to generate £24.1 billion across its lifespan. (Independent 2022).

In the UK, the trade association Offshore Energies has warned that the windfall tax will “deter investors and destabilise the industry in the short term”. The energy industry supports 200,000 jobs in the UK and the sector has pledged £200 billion in investments by 2030 For comparison, this figure is equivalent to around 18 months of NHS spending The windfall tax substantially threatens one of the UK’s biggest industries Deirdre Michie, CEO of Offshore Energies stated: “This proposed tax will disrupt planning and investment and, above all undermine investor confidence”. (OEUK 2022)

The imposition of the 35% windfall tax is ultimately beneficial. Although energy companies may have decisions to make regarding investment, it is unfair that conglomerates should benefit from Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and the

turbulent economic climate. In its very nature, a windfall tax promotes greater equality when those in fortunate positions profit from something they were not responsible for Natural resources are one of the United Kingdom’s greatest assets. The gains made from overseeing the extraction of these resources should be reinvested in the nation, instead of going into the hands of some of the wealthiest companies in the world.

References

BBC (2022a) What is the windfall tax on oil and gas companies? Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60295177 (Accessed: 10 December 2022)

BBC (2022b) Oil Giant TotalEnergies to cut North Sea investment over windfall tax Available at:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63834419 (Accessed: 11 December 2022)

CNN (2022) UK to raise $65 billion from windfall tax on energy companies Available at:

https://edition cnn com/2022/11/17/economy/windfall-taxnuclear-uk-budget/index.html (Accessed 11 December 2022).

Euractiv (2022) Finnish energy industry stunned by government's high windfall tax plan. Available at:

https://www euractiv com/section/politics/news/finnishenergy-industry-stunned-by-governments-high-windfall-taxplan/ (Accessed: 09 December 2022)

Guardian (2022a) Shell profits soar to $9.1bn amid calls for windfall tax. Available at:

https://www theguardian com/business/2022/may/05/shell-profitswindfall-tax. (Accessed: 10 December 2022).

Guardian (2022b) Windfall tax wouldn't stop BP'S £18bn parade of projects Available at:

https://www theguardian com/business/nils-pratley-onfinance/2022/may/03/windfall-tax-debate-bp-profits-labour. (Accessed: 11 December 2022)

Independent (2022) Norweigan oil giant 'threatens to dit £4 5bn North Sea project over Rishi Sunak's windfall tax'. Available at: https://www independent co uk/climate-change/north-seawindfall-tax-equinor-b2104381.html (Accessed: 10 December 2022).

OEUK (2022) New oil and gas exploration key to UK energy security and the energy transition finds OEUK report. Available at: https://oeuk org uk/windfall-taxes-risk-lasting-damage-to-the-uksoffshore-sector-and-energy-security-warns-offshore-energies-uk/ theweek co uk/energy/956757/the-arguments-for-and-against-awindfall-tax-on-oil-and-gas-profits (Accessed: 10 December 2022)

UK Government (2022) Energy Profits Levy Factsheet. Available at: https://www gov uk/government/publications/cost-of-livingsupport/energy-profits-levy-factsheet-26-may-2022 (Accessed: 11 December 2022)

Space Sustainability

Celestial Clean-up: Space Sustainability, Debris and INRoS (It’s Nott Rocket Science)

by Ethan White

ALSO IN THIS SECTION

Qatar 2022

by Leon Hargreaves

How to deal with farmers' love of plastic?

by Adelina Borta

Celestial Clean-up: Space Sustainability, Debris and INRoS (It’s Nott Rocket Science)

By Ethan White

In the last few decades, our civilization has begun its expansion into space and its cosmic beauty. Unfortunately, the exploration of this final frontier has consequences of its own. One such issue facing the growing space industrial sector is the copious amount of waste we produce, predominantly in the form of defunct satellites and other man-made objects that have reached the end of their lifetimes. Although this may appear a trivial issue when considering the vast scope of the cosmos in its entirety as an isolated ‘blue dot’ we reside on, and specifically what’s floating around it, significant concerns are being raised within the scientific community.

Quantitative Analysis

NASA (2021) approximates that half a million pieces of debris the size of a marble or larger orbit Earth at speeds up to 17,500 mph This statistic is worrying regarding the damage a piece of metal travelling at such speeds can have on space craft. For comparison, a study from the Applied Acoustics Journal (2010) found that bullets of a similar diameter travel with speeds significantly slower, at 1145 ± 374 mph. Whilst space vessels are hardy in nature to withstand their environment, delicate machinery or vulnerable areas could be devastated from such collisions. This issue will remain at the forefront of developers’ minds throughout the trajectory of growth of the space industry.

Effects on Industry

A direct example of this phenomenon is the collision between Chinese military satellite Yunhai 1-02 and Object 48078, a piece of space junk from the launch rocket of a defunct Russian spy satellite launched in 1996. The vessel sustained significant damage; it is reported to have survived. It’s functionality, however, remains unknown. According to a tweet from astrophysicist and satellite tracker Jonathan McDowell, an arguably more significant result of this smash-up though is the creation of at least thirty-seven new debris instances Clearly, there is a cascading effect nestled within the heart of this problem In the absence of appropriate actions to reduce present and future debris instances over time, it will affect the sustainability of the industry exponentially.

One potential outcome is an increased emphasis on costly mitigation and reinforcement methods so space craft to survive their mission duration; slowing the development of the Space Sector. It is important to note however that not all debris has the same affect on a craft it collides with, a study from P.H.Krisko (2006) generated future growth models predicting the majority of future collisions being noncatastrophic and as between tiny pieces of debris and larger targets, however it was also noted that: “A non-catastrophic impact on an operational spacecraft could still compromise the mission.”

Problem Solving

ClearSpace is an up-and-coming player in the space industry and this company has made it their mission to combat this problem. Their first vehicle, ClearSpace-1 will launch in 20252026. Their objective is to capture larger space debris, a task originally reserved for astronauts, with robotic technology. They are clearly at the very forefront of tackling this issue and their mission raises exciting new prospects for the future of the industry as a whole.

An image generated from a point-of-view above the north pole, showing debris concentrations in low-earth and geosynchronous orbit Credit: NASA ODPO

Furthermore, The University of Nottingham’s student lead INRoS (It’s Nott Rocket Science) Team provides an example on how the younger generation of upcoming scientists are getting involved with this issue by being a part of the UKSEDs Satellite Design Competition. This project provides the structure and incentive for students across the country to design a cube-sat with the primary function of identifying and characterising space debris to help further space sustainability

INRoS’s Jason, System’s Engineer for Project Vesper said, “Space debris is becoming a big concern in the space industry. Currently, three astronauts are stranded on the International Space Station because a piece of space debris struck a cooling radiator on Soyuz, rendering it unsafe. If the space sector is going to expand this is a challenge that needs to be solved.”

Conclusion

Sustainability is often a concept that gets overlooked in the discussion of the relatively new space sector, however, it is clearly of utmost importance further demonstrated by reusing and saving of materials. The future success of technology and its continued growth is heavily intertwined with not repeating the mistakes we have made in the past as a species. If this axiom can be implemented at all levels, from the leading standards in innovation now, to new talent, the development of the sector as a whole will be much smoother whilst keeping our astronauts as safe as possible

References

NASA (2021), Space Debris and Human Spacecraft, Available at: https://www.nasa.gov/mission pages/station/news/orbital debris.html (Accessed: January 12th 2023) T.Mäkinen (2010), Shooter localization and bullet trajectory, caliber, and speed estimation based on detected firing sounds, Applied Acoustics Journal, Issue 10, page 908, Table 3, Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2010.05.021 (Accessed January 13th 2023) J.Mcdowell (2021), Twitter, Available at: https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1426774988812587008 (Accessed: January 13th 2023)

P.H.Krisko (2006), The predicted growth of the low-Earth orbit space debris environment – an assessment of future risk for spacecraft, SAGE Journals, Special Issue Paper 975, Page 9, Available at: 10.1243/09544100JAERO192 (Accessed: January 14th 2023) NASA Orbital Debris Program Office (2019), Available at https://orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/photo-gallery/, Graphics, (Accessed: January 14th 2023)

Q&A

Innovex Downhole Solutions

Adam Anderson CEO

We sat down with Adam Anderson, CEO of Innovex. Innovex is a company that provides solutions for the upstream sector of the oil and gas industry. They utilise a combination of conventional and innovative technologies to provide the solutions to clients in the fossil fuel industry.

What's it been like to be in the fossil fuel industry? What are the challenges that you face and how has it been facing growing environmentalism and the pushback against fossil fuels in recent years?

First, I would say what I like about the oil and gas industry is that it's it's highly innovative. We get to work all over the world and work on some of the biggest, most challenging problems and it's a lot of fun. We're not encumbered. It's not an industry maybe such as aerospace or medical where there's a ton of bureaucracy and governmental approvals for a lot of things We have to obviously operate safely and professionally, but it's in an environment that's very fast-paced, very quick to try to find solutions when we have problems. So you get a lot of issues that pop up where customers say 'hey, I just had a problem with this well we have $1,000,000 a day rig sitting on top of that well and we need a solution to go down and pull this thing out of the hole or go rerun something different' and we get involved in a lot of those different problem solving and solution sets and that's really what I love about the business. We get to tackle big problems and get to play with big toys. So that's a lot of fun. I also like the fact that it's so international and so diverse in terms of the places we work and the people we work with. I've I think I've had the opportunity to visit like 40 different countries, lived in the Middle

East and I just have a lot of friends from all over the world and have really got to see the world in a way that I think most folks don't get to. So like, that's another thing that I love about the industry. What has happened, and I've seen it over the last 25 years of my career when I first got into the business, there was a big concern about peak oil and peak oil supply The big thing that we worried about was this idea that we had found the best oil reserves on the planet and humanity was facing impending doom because we weren't gonna be able to produce enough oil. I saw that as an opportunity in the sense that, hey, it is tough for the world But if we can help fix that problem, it will be a big opportunity for the oil and gas industry to thrive And that's, in fact, what happened is we unlock deep water and we've got more out of our existing reserves. So being a part of that has been really fascinating. But we have seen this dramatic turn over the last, in particular, over the last four or five years, really over the last two or three, at least in the US, where I think people will said hey, we know we really need oil and gas. there are some concerns about the impact on climate. But it was, let's say, less relevant to the conversation. And I think over the last two years in particular, I would say I would put it at during COVID is when the conversation really changed where people thought, OK, oil and gas is really optional, we don't need it anymore. We can rapidly transition away from it And I think over the last year, we have seen the folly of that way of thinking I probably like being a little bit contrarian. So I like being on the side where I'm in the minority, where the majority of people are telling me what we're doing is wrong and and I feel very strongly that what we do is good for the world, so I kind of like being in that position inherently, at least, probably just how my personality works.

But the thing that I've has struck me in the last couple of years is how that idea that fossil fuels are bad for the world has filtered into our industry and you have so many industry leaders and so many industry participants who share that view and that's what really has surprised me and honestly kind of maybe I'm a little bit distraught over. So a couple of years ago where we had a viral post about North Face refusing to sell their jackets because we're in the oil and gas industry. I wrote a letter to The North Face and posted it online. Got a lot of traction in the industry and a little bit more broadly. The primary reason I did that was because I wanted my employees at Innovex to understand that what we do is super valuable for the world and not have this view that hey, well, you know what we do day-to-day is kind of bad because we're in the oil and gas business and I'm like, no, that's 100% wrong. What we do - the humanity could not survive and thrive without us. And we I think if we as employees and participants in the industry have that view, that what we do is critical It just it's so important to people's mindset and the culture and what you're trying to do that people think that what they're doing is valuable for the world. So that's probably the biggest part that I've struggled with that I've seen in the last few years that I've really tried to fight back against is our own industry getting to the point where we are conflicted about the good that we do for the world.

So, as you mentioned previously, that since COVID there's been a lot of traction in terms of activities going on to reduce the oil and gas industry production? There's also been a rise in environmental, social and governance factors being incorporated into investment decisions or companies' corporate strategies. So how do you think companies in your field are responding to this?

Yeah. So that that's an interesting topic. I think the the ESG concept in principle makes sense, in the sense that we as humans and as an industry and a specific company should be focused on what we're doing to be good stewards of the environment, to improve society around us and that we need to have good governance of our businesses to derive value for everybody. So, like, in principle that makes a lot of sense. What it appears to me that ESG has become a shorthand for declaring a net zero target by some date 30 years in the future. So I think if you look at that part of it, I really struggle with the idea of every company having to somehow genuflect at the altar of net zero and set some goal so far out that none of us - I mean some of us won't even be alive when these things are hit But certainly the leaders who are putting out these CO2 goals for their company will not be the leader of the company at the time that happens. It just strikes me as disingenuous and kind of cynical to put out these targets that you're not gonna be able to hit. And then I would say that whole idea of net zero by a certain date I think is just folly for the world. I feel like there will come a day when there is a lower cost, more reliable, cleaner, lower CO2 energy source and source for everything else that fossil fuels do for us besides energy. But that day is not today. And until that day comes, what fossil fuels do for the world is just irreplaceable, and if we go to net-zero by 2030 or 2040 or 2050 without a replacement for most of the fossil fuel use cases, it's not that we're just gonna suffer It's like the vast majority of us will not make it as a species on the planet. So I think it's actually really destructive and cynical to put out these net-zero targets. So that's my view of ESG. But the idea that we should get back to the basics of taking care of the environment, looking out for the societies in which we operate and having good governance, those things all

make sense and are things that companies probably should focus on a bit more than we have, historically.

So recently in the past year or so, there's been quite a lot of volatility in oil prices. So how has your your company and just the oil and gas industry in general been responding to that compared to years previous to the COVID-19 pandemic?

I think if you look prior to COVID, we had a lot of short cycle supply in the US in particular that was very good at responding to a short term signals, which I think was good for keeping a lid on global commodity pricing but bad for the oil and gas industry - because we just over invested capital to respond to short term price upticks and all we did is drive the price back down. Really up into the five or six years before COVID and then certainly through COVID, we invested way too much and there was just a string of bankruptcies across the industry I think there was like $160 billion of bankruptcies in the US alone in the US shale patch because of this over-investment Coming out of COVID, things have ramped back up, activities come back. The single easiest way to kind of measure US activities through the US rig count, not a perfect barometer of activity, but pretty decent. And if you look at that, you can see things have come back a lot and actually right now probably the US rig count is pretty close to what it was pre covid. So things have come back a fair bit. It has been a little bit constrained versus where it has been would have otherwise been for a couple of different reasons. I think the two big ones are our industry destroyed so much capital from like 2010 to 2020 that investors really got washed out during COVID and just said we're not going back to the industry and they combine that with the second factor, which was this really

strong climate, ESG, whatever you want to call it, that really reached a fever pitch during COVID. I think has since crested and come back down again. But those two factors combined, it was very easy for a lot of different investors up and down the industry who basically said 'Hey, we didn't make any money and everybody hates investing in oil and gas, so you know, voila, we'll just not invest in oil and gas and we'll lose less money and people might dislike us less.' So I think that's why a lot of investors pulled out of investing. So we have grown production since COVID, but not to the same extent we probably otherwise would have if not for those two factors. Now the other thing that's happening in the US is, I believe that we have run through the very best of the best acreage in the places like West Texas and North Dakota, where a lot of the oil production in the US came over the last decade. And so if you look at like activity levels today, pretty similar pre-COVID levels, we're not growing production the same way we did before, not because companies don't want to, but because they're acreage isn't as good or there's other factors There's a whole variety of other factors kind of impacting well productivity. So well productivity has actually come down a little bit as well. So all of those things are kind of working together to kind of constrain US activity and then when you look international, some places have come back more rapidly like Latin America has really ramped back up and I guess that activity in Latin America is as strong as it was, probably something similar in the UK. West Africa has been slower to respond. And then the Middle East hasn't come back as strong yet, which is a little bit surprising to me. But I think in the next year or two you'll see really robust growth in places like Saudi and UAE. You're already starting to see that come back.

Qatar 2022: The future of sporting events?

By Leon Hargreaves

For the first time in history, The FIFA World Cup was held in the Middle East, attracting over 1.4 million fans (Qatar 2022). Following the announcement in 2010, Qatar faced the challenge of constructing eight new sporting arenas including the 80,000 capacity Lusail stadium in just 12 years. Combined with the increased demand for accommodation, transport and policing, could this be done sustainably? What innovative measures did Qatar take to fulfil their carbon neutral World Cup claim?

All eight stadiums were constructed following sustainable building standards, regulated by the Global Sustainability Assessment system (FIFA world cup sustainability report 2022). One venue which defines sustainable innovation is Stadium 974 with a capacity of 44,000 and is made entirely from shipping containers Fully demountable with the potential to be transported and reconstructed in another location, it is one of a kind and significantly reduces carbon emissions through the reduced demand for construction. Following the tournament, the area which stadium 974 occupies will be transformed into a waterfront development, acting as a hub for business start-ups. This will lead to job creation helping to support the local economy long after the world cup has finished. Offsetting carbon emissions requires cutting edge innovation which the construction of the 800MW Al Kharsaah solar power plant provides. Costing $467 million, the plant will supply approximately 10% of Qatar’s electricity demand while reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 26 million tonnes. This doubles Qatar’s renewable energy supply to 20% and could potentially have a positive influence on surrounding middle eastern countries to do the same. Another step Qatar took to achieve their carbon neutral claim is through energy conservation. All stadiums were built with revolutionary air-cooling systems, using a combination of insulation and targeted spot cooling, meaning the system only had to be activated an hour before the game As a result, the process is 40% more efficient that existing techniques, reducing the demand for energy and therefore carbon emissions

However, the claim “carbon neutral” implies that the environmental effect on the world should be zero and is therefore argued to be incredibly misleading.

The reasons are: Qatar has significantly underestimated their carbon emissions and the initiatives to “offset” the emissions don’t involve removing carbon from the atmosphere. Mike Berners Lee, a professor at Lancaster University calculated the actual emissions to be way over 10 million tonnes, almost three times higher than the 3.6 million tonnes estimated by Qatar (BBC 2022). One factor increasing emissions is the approximately 500 daily shuttle flights into Qatar for fans who are staying in neighbouring countries such as the UAE. With 1.4 million fans arriving to Qatar and only 30,000 hotel rooms, this challenge could have never been overcome sustainably. This therefore poses the question: Why did FIFA allow Qatar to host the world cup in the first place?

Although the Qatar world cup saw some creative innovation such as stadium 974, the solar plant construction and the new air conditioning system, constructing eight new stadiums which are likely to be used for this event only, outweighs the sustainable initiatives. The past three world cups have had an average carbon dioxide emission of 2.7 million tonnes, demonstrating the significant effect on the environment Qatar had.

This was not only the most expensive world cup ever at $6.5 billion but also the most emissive.

So, how can we learn from this and reduce the environmental effects of large sporting events using innovation? Perhaps as technology becomes more advanced the sporting experience could be made completely virtual with fans watching the games from home using Virtual Reality. However, owing to the economic benefits a world cup brings to a nation this is unlikely Therefore, a more likely option would be to only consider host nations which already have the infrastructure suitable for a world cup such as stadiums and green transport to each venue This would reduce the need for construction and reduce emissions caused by travel. Despite it being a difficult task, there is certainly potential to improve the environmental effects of major sporting events.

How to deal with farmers’ love of plastic?

By Adelina Borta

For most of human history food security has been a pressing issue. Today, however, it has been all but solved. Thanks to many innovative farming solutions , we have been able to increase the nutritional satisfaction of much of the globe. Many of these solutions, however, such as polytunnels irrigation tubing and fertilisers, all require the use of plastic (Murray 2022). This is not widely known, yet is a crucial fact. Plastics play an important part in farming and have a huge positive impact by combating global food scarcity. Plastics can, therefore, benefit agriculture if used correctly. However, the dangers and damage associated with farming’s use of plastics must also be considered.

The prime use of plastic in agriculture is plastic-sheeted structures known as polytunnels, which create microclimates capable of withstanding harsh weather conditions, with the scope to help gardeners in peripheral regions of the world (Wilson 2017). Yields can be improved via using polytunnels because they keep the soil moist, preventing the growth of weeds and providing more nutrients to crops, therefore helping to produce more food. Consider the problems the UK might face without such innovations. Over recent decades, average UK crop yields have fluctuated from year to year, as a result of better or worse weather; yet now, thanks to these innovations that help create an improved agricultural production environment, the UK now produces 60% of its domestic food production, stabilising the production-tosupply ratio (FAO 2021).

However, whilst the upside of a technology like polytunnels is high, the focus of the debate is now how to stop polluting agricultural plastic from going to landfills, the volume of which entering them is growing rapidly. Just because agricultural plastic does not directly impact climate change, it can do harm when it enters the environment. There are huge trade-offs between the benefits of plastic in food production and their costs, when they are not properly recycled. Farmers and governments should focus on solutions, to make the most of plastic use in production, but minimise harm to the environment.

The use of plastic in agriculture divides opinions. The costs of plastics polluting the environment, if they are not collected properly, outweigh much of the benefits from farming. It is estimated that around 12.5 million tonnes of plastic are used in agriculture every year, with volumes growing rapidly. Problematically, only 30% of agricultural plastic used in the UK is recycled and the rest gets burned or goes to landfill (FAO 2021). The lack of a ‘circulatory’ system in agriculture cancels much of the benefits of using plastic, increasingly negative externalities. The lifetime costs of unrecycled plastic to society, the environment, and the economy in 2019 alone has been estimated at $3.7 trillion by the WWT (FAO 2021). Moreover, agricultural plastic pollution can create huge economic costs in the form of GDP reduction, due to the loss of hospitable land.

Despite the problems associated with plastics in farming, there exist solutions. The UK established the Green Tractor Scheme that aims to collect and process used farm plastic, while enabling farmers to have their packaging recycled, with the aim to be implemented before 2030. Although it sounds promising, it is very difficult and expensive to collect agri-plastics as it requires waste to be sorted, separated, as well as cleaned. Experts argue that most Agri-Plastics are 50% muck and water which means increased costs of recycling (Barylka 2019). Additionally, recycling Agri-plastics involves a collection and gate fee paid to the recycler, which makes the recycling process even more complex.

In order to deal with this gate fee, APE UK launched a voluntary pay scheme for manufacturers based on their new Agri-plastic product sales, in order to fund recycling charges Although this does not solve the entire problem, it does make recycling more promising for farmers (Barylka 2019)

Governments and farmers should now focus on minimising agricultural reliance on plastic. Whilst no one has yet come up with an alternative to agricultural plastic, a few companies from the UK and USA have begun buying plastic agro-wastes on a weight-basis, using farmers’ offloaded plastic to serve as raw materials for alternative uses, such as animal shelters Another organisation collects used drip irrigation tapes from farmers, recycles those into resins, and then sells them as raw materials to plastic packaging centres, thus reducing the environmental impact of wasted drip irrigation tapes (McLaughlin, Kinzelbach 2015). Modern farming practices have been instrumental in resolving food security; however, the problems associated with its misuse of plastic must also be considered (McLaughlin, Kinzelbach 2015).

References:

Murray, S. (2022) How to deal with farmers' love of plastic [online] ft.com. Available at https://www.ft.com/content/b98e547c-7a37-4fec-a448763a23417ca3

FAO (2021) Assessment of agricultural plastic and their sustainability [online] fao.org. Available at https://www.fao.org/publications/card/en/c/CB7856EN/ Wilson, M. (2017) Superstrong polytunnels help Shetland move up the food chain [online] ft.com. Available at https://www.ft.com/content/c9ada714-9eb3-11e7-8b50-0b9f565a23e1 Barylka, Z. (2019) Grow more with less- Reducing plastic footprint in agriculture [online] netafim.com. Available at https://www.netafim.com/en/blog/grow-more-with-less---reducing-plastic-footprint-in-agriculture/ McLaughlin, D. Kinzelbach, W. (2015) Food security and sustainable resource management [online] Available at https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015WR01

Sustainable Business Review

Nottingham Green Economy Society

Sustainable Business Review, 2023

Published February 2023