Tag Archives: waste

Dear Bryony – don’t dump your nuclear waste on us! Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Dear Baroness Worthington,

I watched on in horror as you championed the removal of local authority’s right to decide over the disposal of nuclear waste in their communities.

I didn’t know who you were at the time, and your position of the matter left me thinking perhaps you were a stakeholder in some nuclear power supply chain company.

I was dismayed to learn that you used to be a key member of Friends of the Earth. Further research shows that you have a background in environmentalism and appear on the surface to be concerned with climate change.

So I ask myself, why would someone with your background be a champion of nuclear power? And why would you champion the disposal of nuclear waste underground at levels where groundwater circulates?

And why would you want this done without allowing the full scrutiny of councillors and planning officers? Why would you prefer to remove power from locally elected representatives and place decisions in the hands of one person, creating a potentially corruptible situation?

Nuclear power is not low carbon!

Nuclear power is not a low carbon energy source. There is a wide range of data on the carbon footprint of nuclear waste, much of which is industry rhetoric. Benjamin Sovacool’s review found the average carbon footprint of nuclear power to be 66 gCO2/KWh, breaching the Committee on Climate Change’s recommended limits. Keith Barnham’s article in The Ecologist has more detail:

The fact is the carbon cost of decommissioning and waste handling is difficult to estimate – and if Sellafield’s soaraway clean-up budget is anything to go by, carbon costs as well as financial ones could spiral.

Building geological disposal facilities to handle waste would not necessarily reduce these costs. Vitrification and construction are not low carbon pursuits. What would the carbon cost of a water contamination event be? The human cost would be far greater.

Then there is the issue of uranium mining, a carbon-costly enterprise. As this finite source depletes, ever lower quality of uranium ore will be sought, further increasing the energy required to extract the uranium, and raising the carbon price tag.

Fast breeder reactors technologies that could avoid some of the uranium ore issues have been tried, at enormous cost – and repeatedly failed due to intractable technological hurdles and monstrous expense, while their purported advantages in reducing long-lived nuclear waste have been hugely over-hyped.

Moreover despite bullish promises by the nuclear industry and its cheerleaders, for example over Hitachi’s Prism design, they do not exist – and probably never will.

As for the ‘molten salt’ thorium reactor technology you espouse, it is fraught with most of the same issues as any other nuclear fission technology.

And thanks to serious and possibly unsolvable technological difficulties, it’s a very long way of becoming a practical reality. Any large scale deployment is at least half a century away – by which time low cost renewables will surely dominate the world’s power supply, and it will be completely redundant.

Finite investment funds must go into renewables!

The amount of subsidies the government wishes to funnel into the greedy jaws of nuclear power is quite frightening, locking us into ridiculous contracts for decades and guaranteeing fuel poverty in the future.

Who knows what the energy market will look like in ten, twenty years? Yet energy consumers may be having to pay inflation-proofed subsidies for Hinkley Point C – if it’s ever built – to 2060 and beyond!

If renewable technology received the proper support – and that includes people like you ceasing to defend the nuclear industry that is threatening to grab almost all the UK’s ‘low carbon’ energy funding –  we could be online to meet our carbon targets.

Cheerleading for new builds that take years to get off the ground, even if you do believe they are low carbon – in the face evidence that clearly suggests otherwise – could delay action on climate change that should be happening right now, but is being deliberately starved of funds.

What if those nuclear energy subsidies were instead promised to the solar, wind, tidal, anaerobic digestion and retrofitting industries? Wouldn’t that be a far better way to tackle climate change?

There’s nothing ‘natural’ about fission products!

But back to radioactive waste, which is a sticky issue. We have to deal with what we have, but most environmentalists and humanitarians agree that adding to that pile is madness. Why would someone with your credentials think otherwise?

You have risen to a position of great power. You stood in the Moses room as someone who is known for their actions in protecting the environment, and damned it by championing nuclear power and nuclear waste dumping and stressing that it was a nationally significant issue that extends beyond the lifetimes of the people living in the area.

You spoke about a pendulum of nuclear regulation and how radiation is ‘natural’. Background radiation is natural. Mining ores, processing, enriching etc, is most definitely not natural. Even less so are the myriad fission products emitted by nuclear power plants, concentrated in spent nuclear fuel, and discharged during fuel reprocessing – and comparing the two through insinuation is both wrong and immoral.

How is reducing regulation ever a good move for protecting public health and safety?

You may be thinking right now that I am part of a public that is somewhat hysterical about radiation and its effects. I have a PhD in cancer biology and have studied the response of cells to irradiation.

I’m not frightened of a bit of background radiation, but I do have grave concerns about burying highly radioactive nuclear waste underground where it has to stay isolated for hundreds of thousands of years, without any of it ending up in our water supplies.

The one thing we know for certain about deep hydrogeology is that we don’t know all that much about it. How can you guarantee the safety of our water supplies, and those of our children and their descendants? I suggest you read the ‘Rock Solid?‘ review produced by GeneWatch on behalf of Greenpeace on geological disposal if you have not done so already.

I also very concerned about climate change, and quite aside from the radioactive waste issue, I am opposed to nuclear new builds due to their carbon emission consequences.

I would urge you to rethink your position on nuclear new builds and geological disposal on both pragmatic and ethical grounds.

 

 

Note: Baroness (Bryony) Worthington, a Labour peer, spoke in the House of Lords debate on the Infrastructure Planning (Radioactive Waste Geological Disposal Facilities) Order 2015.

Dr Becky Martin earned her PhD at the Institute of Genetics, University of Nottingham and went on to work at the University of Oxford studying DNA repair gene expression in bladder cancer for three years. She is now a full time mother and environmental campaigner, and blogs here. Together with several other mothers she co-founded the group No Geo Nuke Dumping @NoNukeDumping. 

 

 




391182

Dear Bryony – don’t dump your nuclear waste on us! Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Dear Baroness Worthington,

I watched on in horror as you championed the removal of local authority’s right to decide over the disposal of nuclear waste in their communities.

I didn’t know who you were at the time, and your position of the matter left me thinking perhaps you were a stakeholder in some nuclear power supply chain company.

I was dismayed to learn that you used to be a key member of Friends of the Earth. Further research shows that you have a background in environmentalism and appear on the surface to be concerned with climate change.

So I ask myself, why would someone with your background be a champion of nuclear power? And why would you champion the disposal of nuclear waste underground at levels where groundwater circulates?

And why would you want this done without allowing the full scrutiny of councillors and planning officers? Why would you prefer to remove power from locally elected representatives and place decisions in the hands of one person, creating a potentially corruptible situation?

Nuclear power is not low carbon!

Nuclear power is not a low carbon energy source. There is a wide range of data on the carbon footprint of nuclear waste, much of which is industry rhetoric. Benjamin Sovacool’s review found the average carbon footprint of nuclear power to be 66 gCO2/KWh, breaching the Committee on Climate Change’s recommended limits. Keith Barnham’s article in The Ecologist has more detail:

The fact is the carbon cost of decommissioning and waste handling is difficult to estimate – and if Sellafield’s soaraway clean-up budget is anything to go by, carbon costs as well as financial ones could spiral.

Building geological disposal facilities to handle waste would not necessarily reduce these costs. Vitrification and construction are not low carbon pursuits. What would the carbon cost of a water contamination event be? The human cost would be far greater.

Then there is the issue of uranium mining, a carbon-costly enterprise. As this finite source depletes, ever lower quality of uranium ore will be sought, further increasing the energy required to extract the uranium, and raising the carbon price tag.

Fast breeder reactors technologies that could avoid some of the uranium ore issues have been tried, at enormous cost – and repeatedly failed due to intractable technological hurdles and monstrous expense, while their purported advantages in reducing long-lived nuclear waste have been hugely over-hyped.

Moreover despite bullish promises by the nuclear industry and its cheerleaders, for example over Hitachi’s Prism design, they do not exist – and probably never will.

As for the ‘molten salt’ thorium reactor technology you espouse, it is fraught with most of the same issues as any other nuclear fission technology.

And thanks to serious and possibly unsolvable technological difficulties, it’s a very long way of becoming a practical reality. Any large scale deployment is at least half a century away – by which time low cost renewables will surely dominate the world’s power supply, and it will be completely redundant.

Finite investment funds must go into renewables!

The amount of subsidies the government wishes to funnel into the greedy jaws of nuclear power is quite frightening, locking us into ridiculous contracts for decades and guaranteeing fuel poverty in the future.

Who knows what the energy market will look like in ten, twenty years? Yet energy consumers may be having to pay inflation-proofed subsidies for Hinkley Point C – if it’s ever built – to 2060 and beyond!

If renewable technology received the proper support – and that includes people like you ceasing to defend the nuclear industry that is threatening to grab almost all the UK’s ‘low carbon’ energy funding –  we could be online to meet our carbon targets.

Cheerleading for new builds that take years to get off the ground, even if you do believe they are low carbon – in the face evidence that clearly suggests otherwise – could delay action on climate change that should be happening right now, but is being deliberately starved of funds.

What if those nuclear energy subsidies were instead promised to the solar, wind, tidal, anaerobic digestion and retrofitting industries? Wouldn’t that be a far better way to tackle climate change?

There’s nothing ‘natural’ about fission products!

But back to radioactive waste, which is a sticky issue. We have to deal with what we have, but most environmentalists and humanitarians agree that adding to that pile is madness. Why would someone with your credentials think otherwise?

You have risen to a position of great power. You stood in the Moses room as someone who is known for their actions in protecting the environment, and damned it by championing nuclear power and nuclear waste dumping and stressing that it was a nationally significant issue that extends beyond the lifetimes of the people living in the area.

You spoke about a pendulum of nuclear regulation and how radiation is ‘natural’. Background radiation is natural. Mining ores, processing, enriching etc, is most definitely not natural. Even less so are the myriad fission products emitted by nuclear power plants, concentrated in spent nuclear fuel, and discharged during fuel reprocessing – and comparing the two through insinuation is both wrong and immoral.

How is reducing regulation ever a good move for protecting public health and safety?

You may be thinking right now that I am part of a public that is somewhat hysterical about radiation and its effects. I have a PhD in cancer biology and have studied the response of cells to irradiation.

I’m not frightened of a bit of background radiation, but I do have grave concerns about burying highly radioactive nuclear waste underground where it has to stay isolated for hundreds of thousands of years, without any of it ending up in our water supplies.

The one thing we know for certain about deep hydrogeology is that we don’t know all that much about it. How can you guarantee the safety of our water supplies, and those of our children and their descendants? I suggest you read the ‘Rock Solid?‘ review produced by GeneWatch on behalf of Greenpeace on geological disposal if you have not done so already.

I also very concerned about climate change, and quite aside from the radioactive waste issue, I am opposed to nuclear new builds due to their carbon emission consequences.

I would urge you to rethink your position on nuclear new builds and geological disposal on both pragmatic and ethical grounds.

 

 

Note: Baroness (Bryony) Worthington, a Labour peer, spoke in the House of Lords debate on the Infrastructure Planning (Radioactive Waste Geological Disposal Facilities) Order 2015.

Dr Becky Martin earned her PhD at the Institute of Genetics, University of Nottingham and went on to work at the University of Oxford studying DNA repair gene expression in bladder cancer for three years. She is now a full time mother and environmental campaigner, and blogs here. Together with several other mothers she co-founded the group No Geo Nuke Dumping @NoNukeDumping. 

 

 




391182

Fighting the plastic plague in our oceans Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Over five trillion pieces of waste plastic are floating in our oceans, weighing 268,940 tonnes and causing damage throughout the marine food chain, according to data collected by a team of scientists from the United States, France, Chile, Australia and New Zealand.

The team went on 24 expeditions between 2007 and 2013 that surveyed all five sub-tropical gyres: North Pacific, North Atlantic, South Pacific, South Atlantic and Indian Ocean, and extensive coastal regions and enclosed seas including the Bay of Bengal, Australian coasts and the Mediterranean Sea.

Their work included both surface net tows and visual transects for large plastic debris at 1,571 locations in all oceans. This is the most comprehensive survey to-dat – yet it is most likely a gross under-estimate of the scale of oceanic plastic pollution.

In 2012, the world produced 280 tonnes of plastic. Less than half has been consigned to landfill or recycled, and much of the remaining 150 million tonnes not still in use litters continental shelves and oceans.

Global trends suggest that waste plastics are accumulating exponentially in parallel with trends in plastic production – which has increased 560-fold in just over 60 years.

These by-products of the oil industry are icons of the industrial economy built on the over-exploitation of oil and other fossil fuels that’s turning the planet literally into a terminal wasteland (see Redemption from the Plastics Wasteland).

Waste plastic an escalating environmental hazard

The estimate from the global survey of plastic pollution on the sea surface for all fragment size classes combined is only 0.1% of the world annual production.

The estimates are “highly conservative”, the team acknowledged: they do not account for the potentially massive amounts of plastic washed up on shorelines, submerged on the seabed, suspended in the water column, and inside organisms.

Also, the survey only collected particles larger than 0.33 mm, due to the size of the netting used. Sequestration in the sediment is the likely fate of plastic pollutants after perpetrating numerous impacts on organisms along the way.

Waste plastic in the open ocean is degraded into smaller and smaller fragments through UV radiation, mechanical abrasion, biological degradation, and disintegration. The fragments disperse in the ocean, converging in the subtropical gyres. Generation and accumulation of plastic pollution also occur in closed bays, gulfs and seas surrounded by densely populated coastlines and watersheds.

The impacts through ingestion and entanglement of marine organisms ranging from zooplankton to whales, seabirds and reptiles are well documented, and new studies are showing up harmful effects of nano-size plastic particles that have escaped inventories so far (see Plastic Poisons in the Food Chain).

The data from the global survey showed that during fragmentation plastics are lost from the sea surface [2]. There is a 100-fold discrepancy between the expected microplastics (particles < 4.75 mm) weight and abundance and the actual amounts observed, indicating a tremendous loss of microplastics.

This suggests removal processes are operating, including UV degradation, biodegradation (by microorganisms), ingestion / absorption by organisms, decreased buoyancy due to fouling organisms, entrapment in settled detritus, and beaching.

Fragmentation rates of already brittle microplastics may be very high, breaking them down into ever smaller submicron or nanoparticles, and unrecoverable by the nets.

Numerous studies demonstrate that many more organisms ingest small plastic particles than previously thought, either directly or indirectly via their prey organisms. These are then packaged into faecal pellets which sink to the bottom. Further, there is evidence that some microbes can degrade microplastics.

Plastics at sea the cause of ecological havoc

A team of scientists led by Chelsea Rochman at University of California Davis and Mark Anthony Browne at University of California Santa Barbara in the United States wrote a Commentary in the journal Nature in 2013 calling for the need to classify plastics hazardous waste.

They point out that plastic debris can physically harm wildlife. Many plastics may be chemically harmful either because they are themselves potentially toxic or because they absorb other pollutants.

Waste plastics can kill or damage ecologically and commercially important species including mussels, sea-marsh grasses and corals. Mammals, reptiles and birds can be harmed through ingesting plastic or becoming entangled in it.

In 2012, the secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity in Montreal Canada reported that all sea turtle species, 45% of marine mammal species and 21% of seabird species can be harmed in that way.

Yet in the US, Europe, Australia and Japan, plastics are classified as regular ‘solid waste’ and treated like food scraps or grass clippings. Policies for managing plastic debris are outdated and severely threaten the health of wildlife.

As plastic breaks into smaller pieces, it is more likely to infiltrate food webs. In lab and field studies, fish, invertebrates and microorganisms ingest micrometre sized or smaller particles, which also come from synthetic (polyester or acrylic) clothing and cleaning products containing plastics.

Studies in humans and mussels have found that ingested and inhaled microplastics get into cells and tissues where they can cause harm. In patients who have had their knee or hip joints replaced with plastic implants, such particles can disrupt cellular processes and degrade tissues.

Toxicities of plastics

Plastics are made up of repeating units or monomers that join up to form long chains or polymers. These chains are thought to be generally inert – yet unreacted monomers and other harmful ingredients can be found in plastics.

According to United Nations’ Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals, the chemical ingredients of more than 50% of plastics are hazardous. Studies investigating the transfer of additives in polyvinylchloride (PVC) from medical supplies to humans indicate that these chemicals can accumulate in the blood.

In lab tests, monomers and other ingredients of PVC polystyrene, polyurethane and polycarbonate can be carcinogenic and can affect organisms in similar way to the hormone oestrogen.

The monomers making up some plastics such as polyethylene (used for carrier bags) was thought to be more benign. Yet these materials can still become toxic by picking up other pollutants. Pesticides and organic pollutants such as polychlorinated biphenyls are consistently found on plastic wastes at harmful concentrations 100 times higher than those found in sediments, and 1 million times those occurring in sea water.

Many of these are ‘priority pollutants’ – chemicals regulated by government agencies, including US Environment Protection Agency (EPA) because of their toxicity or persistence in organisms and food webs. These chemicals can disrupt processes such as cell division and immunity, causing disease or reducing the organisms’ ability to escape from predators or reproduce.

In an unpublished analysis, the authors found that at least 78% of priority pollutants listed by the EPA and 61% listed by the EU are associated with plastic debris. Seabirds that have ingested plastic waste have polychlorinated biphenyls in their tissues at 300% greater than those that have not eaten the plastic.

Classify the most harmful plastics as hazardous!

Governments have struggled for decades to reduce plastic debris. The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) was signed in 1973, although a complete ban on the disposal of plastics at sea was not enacted until the end of 1988.

Despite 134 nations agreeing to eliminate plastics disposal at sea, ocean sampling suggests that the problem has persisted or worsened since MARPOL was signed.

The scientists wrote: “We feel that the physical dangers of plastic debris are well enough established, and the suggestions of the chemical dangers sufficiently worrying, that the biggest producers of plastic waste – the United States, Europe and China – must act now.

“These countries should agree to classify as hazardous the most harmful plastics, including those that cannot be reused or recycled because they lack durability or contain mixtures of materials that cannot be separated.”

Focusing on the most hazardous plastics is a realistic first step. Currently, just four plastics – PVC, polystyrene, polyurethane and polycarbonate – make up roughly 30% of production. These are made of potentially toxic materials and difficult to recycle.

PVC is used in construction, such as pipes that carry drinking water. Polystyrene is used for food packaging; polyurethane in furniture; and polycarbonate in electronics. Health-care and technology industries are already replacing PVC components in intravenous-drip bags and in computers with materials that are safer, more durable and recyclable, such as polypropylene and aluminium.

With the proposed change in plastics classification, many affected habitats could immediately be cleaned up under national legislation with government funds.

In the United States, for instance, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 would enable the EPA to clear the vast accumulations of plastics that litter the terrestrial, freshwater and marine habitats under US jurisdiction.

Ultimately, the scientists want changes in regulation to drive the development of a closed-loop system in which all plastics are reused and recycled, instead of ending up in landfills where chemicals leach from the plastic into surrounding habitats.

“If current consumption rates continue, the planet will hold another 33 billion tonnes of plastic by 2050. This would fill 2.75 billion refuse-collection trucks, which would wrap around the planet roughly 800 times if placed end to end”, the scientists wrote.

“We estimate that this could be reduced to just 4 billion tonnes if the most problematic plastics are classified as hazardous immediately and replaced with safer, reusable materials in the next decade.”

 

 

Dr Mae Wan Ho is the director of the Institute of Science in Society (ISIS), which campaigns against unethical uses of biotechnology.

Action: Beat the Microbead!

This article was originally published by ISIS. A fully referenced version of this article is posted on ISIS members website and otherwise available for download here

Author’s note: Please circulate widely and repost, but you must give the URL of the original and preserve all the links back to articles on our website. If you find this report useful, please support ISIS by subscribing to our magazine Science in Society, and encourage your friends to do so. Or have a look at the ISIS bookstore for other publications. Meanwhile, a solution to cleaning up existing waste and a route of recycling may be turning Waste Plastics into Fuel Oil?

 




390258

Reducing food waste with taste-bud tickling recipes for Christmas leftovers Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




By the end of the festive season nearly three quarters of us will have struggled to eat all the food we’ve bought. Across the UK 2 million turkeys and 74 million mince pies will have been binned, costing us money and harming the environment.

This staggering number could be significantly cut if more of us froze food before it goes to waste. Independent research has shown that the average family could save £250 a year and cut food waste by half through freezing leftovers.

Polling carried out by the new charity Hubbub has discovered that the freezer is the Siberia of the kitchen – where food is sent never to return. 55% of those who do freeze food forget about it.

Over half the people polled told us that a lack of space in the freezer causes food to go waste. Two-fifths of people were unsure what they could freeze and how long it is safe to keep something frozen.

Festive Freeze

In response to this, Hubbub is today launching Festive Freeze, urging us to embrace our freezers this Christmas and transform festive leftovers into spring dinners.

It’s easy too – we’ve put together some top tips and tools around what’s hot and what’s not when freezing food.

The campaign dispels the main myths around freezer use – what can and can’t be frozen; the impact on nutrition; the cost of running a freezer; and the impact on food quality. We’ve provided downloadable tools to help such as a freezer inventory and labels.

Plus we’ve collected a flurry of freezer-friendly recipes that transform tired turkey and stodgy sprouts into tantalising meals that can be frozen ready to fight off the January blues.

Hugh Fearney-Whittingstall offers chestnut and sage soup, Mark Hix shows us how to make Moroccan turkey cigars, Tom Hunt gives us a brussel sprout detox salad, there’s a turkey, sausage and bacon pie from Tom Aikens, brandy butter from Darina Allen and much more – and a few of our own favorites follow below.

Most of us know that by this time of year bank balances have shrunk and waist lines have grown. In a (chest)nutshell Festive Freeze helps households save money and stamp out the absurdity of food waste.

So let’s all come together and make a New Year resolution to freeze food before it goes to waste – it will benefit your wallet as well as the planet!

Charred sprout dip

To use up leftover sprouts we would suggest embracing the strong flavour of these brassicas (one of the finest vegetable species in our opinion, yielding cultivars such as broccoli, savoy cabbage and the still hip kale) by making them into a dip.

Ingredients:

Leftover cooked sprouts
Milk and thick yoghurt / creme fraiche as desired
Cider vinegar
Salt

Method:

Take any leftover cooked sprouts, slice them in half lengthways and heat cut face down on a griddle or heavy pan over a high heat. Re-cook the sprouts in this way until they are partly charred on the underside. You don’t want them to be totally blackened, but a good strong char will give a great flavour.

Whilst still warm, blend the charred sprouts in a food processor or blender with enough warmed milk to form a thick puree. Mix your choice of creme fraiche or thick (e.g. Greek-style) yoghurt into the puree, to add richness and dairy tang.

Add a little at a time and stop when you have a balance that you like, there are no rules here. Finally season with a little cider vinegar and salt to taste.

Recipe by Mike Knowlden of Blanch & Shock.

Turkey pilaf with seasoned yoghurt

Leftover turkey will give us all the flavour we need to make a delicious stock. A stock takes minutes to prepare makes the most of what we have and steps the dish up a notch giving it an unbelievably good flavour.

This meal for four costs next to nothing to make yet feels decadent and exotic. Recipe by Tom Hunt, Eco chef and food waste activist.

Video available online for guidance.

For the stock (makes about 450ml):

1 leftover turkey or chicken carcass, with any meat picked off and kept to one side. 
1 carrot, onion, stick celery, all finely chopped
Any veggies that need using up, such as courgettes, broccoli, kale, mushrooms…

For the pilaf:

500g roast carrots and parsnips, cut into rough cubes  
2 medium onions, sliced 
4 cloves garlic, roughly chopped
1 tablespoon ground coriander
Pinch of cinnamon 
150-250g of leftover turkey or chicken meat, shredded
150g wholegrain basmati
50g nuts, crushed 
Yoghurt to serve, spiced with coriander, salt and pepper

Method:

Preheat the oven to 180C

1. First make the stock. Pick all the meat from the carcass and put to one side. Put all the bones and stock vegetables in a pan and cover with water. Bring to the boil and simmer for one hour. Strain. 

2. Meanwhile in a thick, ovenproof dish, gently fry the sliced onions in light olive oil for 10 minutes until they are soft and caramelized. Add the coriander, cinnamon and garlic and fry for a further 2 minutes. 

3. Add the rice and stir, coating each and every grain with oil, onion and spice. 

4. Add the turkey or chicken meat and cover with stock. Bring to the boil, then reduce the heat. Taste and adjust the seasoning as required. Put the lid on and put in the oven for 45 minutes until the water has evaporated. 

5. Sprinkle with nuts and serve with the spiced yoghurt.

Christmas pudding ice cream

A cheat’s version of Rum and Raisin using leftover Christmas Pudding. Recipe by Love Food Hate Waste.

Ingredients:

125g leftover Christmas pudding, crumbled.
150ml chilled ready made custard.
150ml double cream, whipped.
Liquor such as branch, rum, whisky or Baileys. 

Method:

Mix together the custard and whipped cream then stir in the crumbled Christmas pudding. Freeze in a large Tupperware container and stir every half hour or so until it’s the consistency you want.

For a softer freeze, add a little brandy or leftover Christmas liquor such as rum, whisky or Baileys.

 

For more ideas, receipes, and to submit your own recipe, visit Festive Freeze.

Gavin Ellis is one of the Founders of Hubbub. Previously Gavin was Senior Client Manager at Global Action Plan, one of the UK’s leading environmental charities. He has been involved in communicating sustainability to mainstream audiences for more than ten years.

 




388418

Leaked: EU Commission plot to ditch waste and air pollution laws Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




The European Commission plans to scrap its flagship Circular Economy package and anti-air pollution rules next week.

The executive will ditch the rules from its 2015 work programme, sources told EurActiv. The announcement is expected to be made next week, on Wednesday 17th December following a College of commissioners meeting the previous day.

The Circular Economy package is designed to increase resource efficiency and recycling, and the Clean Air Package imposes rules that set member states’ air quality targets.

Sources told EurActiv that Commissioners were handed a secret document yesterday (10 December) at their weekly meeting.

The document, outlining a list of bills to be killed off by Commission Vice-President Frans Timmermans, was taken back from the Commissioners, after it was read and discussed.

Greg Archer, Transport & Environment’s clean vehicles manager, commented: “President Juncker and vice-president Timmermans think they are playing a clever PR card by axing the Clean Air package in a bid to cut so-called ‘red tape’.

“But the fact is air pollution is the single biggest environmental concern of Europeans and the press has stories week-in week-out about how dirty air is choking our cities and causes 400,000 premature deaths a year.”

Environmental laws ditched, air quality rules weakeed

A leaked version of the work programme, which emerged today, appeared to confirm the environmental laws, and 78 other pieces of pending legislation, would be scrapped. The Air Quality rules would be modified in view of the 2030 Climate and Energy package, the document said.

Timmermans is conducting a screening exercise of pending legislation as part of the Commission’s drive for “better regulation”. He sent a letter to the Commissioners last month, which suggested the rules were under threat.

Commissioners will meet on Tuesday to discuss the programme. An official announcement should follow the next day in the European Parliament. The decision has not yet been finalised and could still change. Any withdrawal will first be discussed with the European Parliament and Council.

EurActiv has obtained a copy of a letter sent by European Parliament President Martin Schulz to Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, dated 9th November. Schulz stressed concerns that environmental and social policy feature adequately in the programme.

Both bills were on a hit list of laws that the influential trade association BusinessEurope sent to the Commission. BusinessEurope wanted the Circular Economy package to be withdrawn and re-tabled as an economic piece of legislation. Laws to reduce air pollution should be withdrawn, they said.

Juncker’s plans run into fierce opposition

Environmental NGOs responding by writing to Juncker and Timmermans, asking the Commission to speed up the implementation of the bills.

Among them was Pieter de Pous, the European Environmental Bureau’s policy director, who complained of the “extremely negative message to European citizens” the Commission was sending out.

“Basically, it no longer cares about improving their health and quality of life, nor will it try to protect the environment. Instead it is guided by short-sighted business interests which are unwilling to develop new and cleaner business models. ‘Better regulation’ is deregulation pure and simple.”

Belgium, Germany, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Cyprus, Luxembourg, Portugal, Slovenia and Sweden wrote a letter to Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker on 1st December, calling on him to keep the Air Quality and Circular Economy packages.

The European Commission said it could not confirm or deny the legislation would be ditched, as the contents of its work programme had not yet been finalised:

“This Commission is committed to making a difference and to doing things differently. The Work Programme for 2015 will be an opportunity for a fresh start, focusing on what truly matters for citizens – jobs, growth and investment …

“The Commission is also reviewing all pending proposals, in accordance with the principle of political discontinuity and to allow all the institutions to focus their efforts on priorities. The Commission is considering proposing to withdraw proposals which do not match the political priorities or which are out of date.

“In some cases the Commission, whilst fully supporting the objectives behind certain proposals, is considering withdrawing them to replace them with more effective means to achieve them, with a realistic chance of being adopted.

“The Commission is also looking at how to put a renewed effort into implementing what already exists, also making sure it’s fit for purpose and works on the ground.”

Laws and rules at risk

The Circular Economy package was proposed in July 2014. It contained a wide-ranging list of legally binding targets. They include:

  • a 70% recycling target for municipal waste by 2030;
  • an 80% recycling target for packaging, such as glass, paper, metal and plastic by 2030;
  • and a ban on landfilling of all recyclable and biodegradable waste by 2025.

The package also lists a series of “aspirational” goals, which are not legally enforceable:

  • a phase out of landfilling of all recoverable waste by 2030;
  • a 30% reduction of waste by 2025;
  • and a 30% fall in marine litter by 2020.

The Air Quality package revises rules first set in 1999. The 2013 proposal revises targets set in 1999, toughening then and increasing its scope to cover some new pollutants.

It fixes emissions ceilings at national level, for nitrogen dioxide for example, obliging member states to hit air quality targets. Supporters say it is the only way to reduce cross-border pollution in the EU. Sectors such as vehicle and fuel legislation, shipping regulations and UN agreements are covered by the draft law.

Green MEPS were also appalled at Junckers’ proposal. “Allowing air pollution to go unchecked would mean sentencing children and adults to poor respiratory health and earlier death”, said Keith Taylor, Green MEP for South East England.

“I call on European Commission President Jean Claude-Juncker to keep this crucial piece of legislation in order to protect the health of our 507 million European Citizens.”

Better environment protection benefits us all!

Angelo Caserta, director of Birdlife Europe and current chair of the ‘Green 10’ group of leading environmental NGOs in Europe, said:

“We are deeply concerned that environmental protection and sustainability is not only going to be absent in the Commission’s Workplan for 2015 but that Vice-President Timmermans is even planning to withdraw two recently proposed pieces of legislation that would bring major benefits for citizens’ health, the environment as well as for Europe’s economy – the air package and circular economy package.

“By withdrawing the air quality proposal, the European Commission would miss the opportunity to prevent as many as 58,000 premature deaths per year that result from air pollution, when the current toll is 400,000 premature deaths per year.

We would also miss a huge economic benefit to the European economy as the air quality directive would deliver health benefits of €40-140 billion in avoided external costs and provide about €3 billion in direct benefits due to higher productivity of the workforce, lower healthcare costs, higher crop yields and less damage to buildings.

“Withdrawing the circular economy package would also go against the number one priority of the European Commission. Europe would fail to create as many as 180,000 new jobs through turning waste into a resource while making business more competitive and reducing demand for and dependency from costly scarce resources from outside the continent.”

 

 

This article was originally published by EurActiv.

More from EurActiv:

 




379481

The great Hallowe’en pumpkin rescue Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




An estimated 18,000 tonnes of pumpkin was sent to landfill sites in the UK last Hallowe’en, which is why new the environmental organisation Hubbub has launched the #pumpkinrescue campaign to inform people about the amount of edible food that gets sent to landfill.

New research by Populus shows that nearly two thirds (64%) of people throw their pumpkins away once Halloween is over. More than half (52%) of those who buy pumpkins would welcome more recipes to decrease waste.

18,000 tonnes of pumpkin is the same weight as 1,500 double decker buses – and if made into pumpkin pie it could make 360 million portions!

It’s a shocking fact that demonstrates how much edible food is thrown away throughout the country, at a time when an estimated 5.8 million people are living in deep poverty.

In the UK we throw away over 7 million tonnes of edible food and drink from our homes each year, according to WRAP. Wasting edible food costs the average UK family £60 a month, and when food is sent to landfill it emits harmful greenhouse gases which contribute to climate change.

Glowing pumpkins of the night,
Ours to eat! Not just to fright …

To encourage consumers to think about the food they throw away and teach them new skills to combat waste, Hubbub has launched the #pumpkinrescue campaign and is hosting the Oxford Pumpkin Festival – which continues until 9th November.

Local restaurants, farmers, retailers, food banks, school children and students will all be involved in a series of events – including an outdoor mini food festival, communal soup making, immersive performances and cooking workshops.

There’s also a tweetathon using #pumpkinrescue today, Friday 31st October.

As my colleague Trewin Restorick, Hubbub‘s founder and CEO, says: “Hallowe’en is increasingly popular in the UK, but we seem to have ignored a crucial part of the US tradition: cooking with pumpkins rather than throwing them in the bin. With household food budgets under pressure, and 18,000 tonnes sent to landfill each year, it’s time we rescued the pumpkin.”

“Pumpkin Rescue aims to help consumers think about the food they throw away – providing recipes and new skills to help tackle food waste.”

The #pumpkinrescue manifesto

To support the launch of #pumpkinrescue, Hubbub has launched a five-point manifesto, which calls on communities, retailers and the Government to take action to end food waste.

  1. All supermarkets to make publicly available the amount of food waste they create and detail what happens to it.  These figures should be independently verified and consistent so that the public can accurately compare supermarket performance.
  2. All supermarkets to ensure safe and healthy surplus food is redistributed to those on low incomes and to actively work with charities to make this happen.
  3. English local authorities to follow the lead set by the rest of the UK and increase domestic food waste collection provision from a fifth to all households by 2020.
  4. Government to increase their investment in the Love Food Hate Waste campaign which is successfully cutting food waste.
  5. To increase consumer awareness of the benefits of freezing food that would otherwise be thrown away saving them £250 a year and reducing domestic food waste by 47%.

And with many households simply not knowing how to turn all their Hallowe’en pumpkins into delicious edible form, we are promoting these fantastic #pumpkinrescue recipes to help you get the most out of them. Enjoy!

Ainsley’s Spiced Pumpkin Cake

Ingredients: 250g plain flour / 1 tsp bicarb of soda / 1 tsp cinnamon / ¼ tsp ground cloves / 1 ½ tsp ground ginger / ½ tsp allspice / Pinch of salt / 150g soft brown sugar / 60g softened butter / 1 large egg / 150g molasses or black treacle / 120ml boiling water / 200g pumpkin flesh

For the pumpkin puree, cut the pumpkin into quarters, then peel and cut into chunks. Place in a large saucepan, cover with water, bring to the boil and cook for 20 minutes or until tender. Drain, cool, then puree in a food processor or mash with a potato masher.

Preheat oven to 180°C/350°F/Gas 4. Grease and line a 20cm/8inch deep cake tin. Sift flour, bicarb, ginger, spices and salt into a large bowl. Stir the molasses / treacle into the boiling water until well combined, then stir in 200g of pumpkin puree.

Beat together the butter and sugar until pale, add the egg and continue to beat until light and fluffy. Gradually mix in the pumpkin and egg mixture into the dry ingredients until well combined. Do not over mix.

Pour into the cake tin and bake in the middle of the oven for 45-50 mins or until an inserted skewer comes out clean. Cool on a wire rack and serve with custard or coconut custard. Serves 8.

Recipe provided by Ainsley Harriet.

Rubies’ Pumpkin Chutney

Ingredients: 750g 1cm diced pumpkin / 500g sugar / 400ml cider vinegar / 1 large onion, chopped / 2 tsp dried chilli flakes / 1 tsp paprika / 80g fresh ginger / 1 tsp cinnamon powder / 150g sultanas / 400g apple, peeled and 1cm diced / 1 tbsp oil / handful of pumpkin seeds (optional)

Put the oil in a pan with the chilli flakes, cinnamon, fresh ginger (and pumpkin seeds if adding). Heat through being careful the spices don’t burn.

Add the chopped onion and cook through for 5 mins, then add the vinegar, sultanas and sugar. Stir until boiling and the sugar dissolves. Add the pumpkin and apple and cook until the chutney is thick and the pumpkin is cooked through (this could take 2 hours). 

Taste and vary spices according to your liking, then jar in to dry, clean jars and start decorating your label! Happy Pumpkin preserving!

Recipe provided by Rubies in the Rubble.

Tom’s Pumpkin, Ricotta and Ginger Tarts

Pumpkin Puree: 200g of rough dice pumpkin / 25g of shallots / knob of butter / 150ml of double cream / 10g of ginger, grated / 1 pinch of salt / 3 pinches of pepper

Pastry: 125g plain flour / 1 pinch of salt / 55g butter, cubed / 2-3 tbsp cold water

Pumpkin & Ricotta: 100g of 2cm dice pumpkin / 15mls of olive oil / 2 sprigs of picked thyme / 1 pinch of salt / 3 pinches of pepper / 100g ricotta cheese

Filling: 50g crème fraiche / 50ml whole milk / 50ml double cream / 2 eggs

Puree: Peel and de-seed the pumpkin and cut into a rough dice. Sweat off the shallots in the butter, then add the squash and ginger and gently cook for approximately 5 minutes in an oiled pan. Add the cream and cook until the pumpkin is tender, then strain off the cream and blend the squash to a puree – add back some of the strained cream if needed to give it a smooth consistency.

Pastry: Put the flour and salt in a large bowl and add the cubes of butter. Rub the butter into the flour until you have a mixture that resembles breadcrumbs. Stir in just enough cold water to bind the dough. Wrap the dough in clingfilm and chill for 10-15 mins.

Pumpkin and Ricotta: Peel and dice the pumpkin, place in a large bowl, dress with olive oil, thyme and seasoning, place on a large tray and cover with foil. Cook at 160°C until tender. Crumble the ricotta and leave to one side until ready to assemble.

Main filling: Whisk all the ingredients together in a large bowl.

To assemble: Line 4 individual tart tins with the pastry, then pour 1tbsp of puree in each tin and spread it around the pastry bottom using the back of a spoon. Sprinkle the pumpkin and ricotta over the top of the puree, then pour in the filling. Add the final small spoonful’s of the pumpkin puree on top and garnish with the thyme. Bake the tarts in the oven at 160°C for 15 minutes.

Recipe provided by Tom Aikens / Tom’s Kitchen.

 

 

Gavin Ellis is one of the Founders of Hubbub. Previously Gavin was Senior Client Manager at Global Action Plan, one of the UK’s leading environmental charities. There he led major environmental behaviour change campaigns with clients such as Sainsbury’s, Telefonica and Unilever. Prior to that Gavin was Marketing Manager at Global Action Plan. He also set up the UK’s first online carbon calculator and the UK’s first environmental lifestyle magazine Ergo.

Twitter: @hubbubuk

More pumpkin recipes on these Facebook group pages:

 




386191