The Standard reports on an investigation of the soft-plastics recycling schemes of two of the UK's biggest supermarkets.

The investigation, conducted by the Everyday Plastic campaign group and the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA UK), showed that, "out of the trackers known to have reached a final destination, seven were found to have been turned into fuel pellets, which are commonly used by industry such as in cement kilns. Five were burned for energy, four were downcycled into lower value plastic products overseas, mostly in Turkey, and just one was downcycled in the UK. Eight of the tracked bundles were found to have been sent overseas and 70% of the bundles that reached a known destination were burned for energy, not recycled."

So, basically, very little recycling went on, but that should not be surprising. Many plastics are difficult or impossible to recycle, especially soft plastics. What is wrong here is that these supermarkets are presenting their schemes to the public as recycling schemes, when, in fact, they are a scam.

I religiously recycle: paper, glass, metal and plastics. I often wonder about the sense of recycling plastic and paper: in Munich general garbage is incinerated, yielding energy for generating electricity and district heating schemes; I know that paper is often burned instead of being recycled, and suspect that the same is true of much of the plastic. Unfortunately, it is hard to get reliable facts about how much recycling is actually burnt.

It is very difficult to make informed decisions about recycling in the absence of the relevant facts. One should also remember that the facts about recycling are different depending on where you live.

Finally some good news about the environment! The BBC reports that the UK has closed its last electricity generation plant powered by coal.

Not before time, I say! If other nations do the same, and soon, we might have a chance of surviving as a species.

This article on Phys.Org describes a new study on drinking water quality in Europe, which shows high levels of TFA (trifluoroacetic acid) (a byproduct of the breakdown of PFAS, used in pesticides and refrigeration) in bottled and tap water in 11 EU countries. The study by the Water Technology Centre in Karlsruhe, Germany, found TFA in 34 of 36 tap water samples and in 12 of the 19 bottled mineral and spring waters.

The concentrations detected far exceed the levels currently considered safe, in many of the samples.

I don't currently have a list of which waters were tested, but the odds are that many of the polluted brands of bottled water are also sold in the USA, Canada and elsewhere.

There were already concerns about the safety of drinking water in many countries, with previous studies showing chemical and biological contamination detected in Europe, Britain and the USA.

Is there nothing left in this world that is safe to eat or drink? Have we really messed up our planet so badly?

A new study by University College London and the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), reported on by The Guardian, shows that the world does not need any new licences for fossil fuel projects, because we already have enough to keep us supplied until 2050, at which point governments have committed to achieving "net zero emissions".

The study suggests that governments stop issuing new licences for fossil fuel exploration and exploitation immediately, since we do not need any more oil, gas, coal, etc. That, however is not enough. Other studies have already shown that we don't dare to use all of the reserves that we already have, because of the climate impact that would cause. This means that governments need to cancel existing licences and projects, and shut down some current extraction projects. Realistically, governments will not take such drastic steps, because fossil fuel companies donate huge amounts to political parties and employ a vast army of lobbyists, giving them huge influence on government policy.

Things are not looking good for our planet and the living things which inhabit it (wildlife, livestock and humans).

This BBC story really makes me despair.

EU states made a commitment to meet targets on pollutants from diesel cars and trucks (including, importantly, NO2) by the year 2010. Such pollution causes tens of thousands of deaths each year in Britain.

Client Earth, air quality activists, are taking the UK government to court over their failure to meet the committed targets.

Now, however, it looks like the UK will be lucky to meet these targets by 2030, and quite possibly not even by then. So, not much of a commitment, is it?

The bizarre thing is that, up to now, the UK government had been saying that all parts of the UK would be in compliance by 2025. That is already 15 years after the committed date, but they seem to think that is good enough. Well, I don't think that 2025 is good enough, and 2030 is even worse.

This kind of side-stepping of commitments seems to be a growing trend with governments around the world, and not just with promises about the environment (carbon emissions, energy efficiency, fishing quotas, wild-life reserves, etc.) but also on other topics (peace treaties, stamping out trade in conflict diamonds, spying, budget deficits, health care, infrastructure and returning antiquities to their country of origin).

I guess that none of us can claim to be surprised to discover that politicians cannot be trusted to keep their word, but at some point we need to push back against the lies and bullshit.