Solutions to Marine Plastic Pollution by Meera Amari Chauhan

Taking a walk by a local reservoir during lockdown provoked me to write this blog. As I observed cans carelessly sprinkled across the countryside boulders, I pondered over what laws were present to restrict such behaviour, what solutions were engineered to deal with environmental crime.

Via research I found that polluting the sea is a criminal offence in the UK. Legalities that exemplify this include: Section 85 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009[1] and regulation 38(1)(a) of the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010[2]. Other guidelines emanate from The Environmental Liability Directive[3] and The Water Quality Standards. Environmental laws rooting from Europe still apply to UK domestic law after Brexit, for the time being. Since EU law is so entrenched in UK domestic law, the decision for now remains that environmental law will not change in accordance. The future holds two pathways; “The Norway model (the UK continues to have access to the single market by re-joining the European Economic Area)”[4] or “the UK leaves the single market and is no longer required to apply EU environmental laws[5]”.

Norwegian technology companies have developed a range of solutions to combat ocean plastic pollution[6]. Some examples include SpillTech’s PortBin range of solutions; these devices are implemented to collect floating waste from small bodies of water. Clean Sea Solutions has developed a robot or “aqua drone”[7] which can be sent out on missions to tackle bigger ocean spaces. Clean Sea’s invention is a considerably effective tool in tackling the issue of plastic littered in our seas because it requires little human labour to operate.

Like how businesses rely on several divisions of expertise to function, the Earth relies on biodiversity to continue evolving. These varieties of life or communities on Earth have rights just like humans have rights. If these rights are not satisfied, extinction will be inevitable. Like we drain the batteries of our phones and computers, using non-biodegradable materials will drain the ocean habitat. In California, “The CWA set the goal of attaining water quality standards by 1983. This date is over 30 years past due.[8]” Therefore, clarity over rules about how we treat our surroundings, to ensure long-term sustainability of our planet: Earth is paramount. Earth Law, an emerging jurisprudence, seeks to overcome the issue of ocean plastic pollution.

A couple of organisations that pioneer Earth-justice initiatives in the UK include Client Earth[9] and The Environmental Justice Foundation[10]. A simple idea that offices could implement is to ensure that all employees are given reusable water bottles with a logo on, this would aid marketing, stop the temptation to litter and ensure people are keeping hydrated. Of course, it should be accounted that many already implement this. If our environmental future matters, this blog highlights only a trickle of solutions. It should spark discussion on how corporate social responsibility should embrace an even more solution-driven approach.

[1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/23/section/85 [2] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/675/regulation/38 [3] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:02004L0035-20190626&qid=1568193390794&from=EN [4] http://www.environmentlaw.org.uk/brexit [5] http://www.environmentlaw.org.uk/brexit [6] https://www.theexplorer.no/stories/ocean/cleaner-seas-with-norwegian-technology/?gclid=CjwKCAjwxev3BRBBEiwAiB_PWAdKR6F_9D5V5ZGFVM5rY_vNy1m41l9jGsrBmxqp_1MYtSzSGzxHtBoCII8QAvD_BwE [7] https://www.theexplorer.no/stories/ocean/cleaner-seas-with-norwegian-technology/?gclid=CjwKCAjwxev3BRBBEiwAiB_PWAdKR6F_9D5V5ZGFVM5rY_vNy1m41l9jGsrBmxqp_1MYtSzSGzxHtBoCII8QAvD_BwE [8] https://www.earthlawcenter.org/blog-entries/2018/3/an-earth-law-solution-to-ocean-plastic-pollution?gclid=CjwKCAjwx9_4BRAHEiwApAt0zrLDNtYmesS_qWKXMnIVL7ch5uwEPFXftA1WX0-JhRl8p_XHdWctfxoC6qwQAvD_BwE [9] https://www.clientearth.org/?gclid=CjwKCAjwx9_4BRAHEiwApAt0zpem3lyAbGA2dDMxI_wuR7LM-eVADHDy3RPn4AOixhXqsao5wwWUOBoC7qkQAvD_BwE [10] https://ejfoundation.org/who-we-are

Harrison Jowett: Sustainable Industry- what's really going on? (Part 2)

Part 2: How business is embarking on the sustainable journey.

The ‘great lockdown’ is having an unparalleled impact on the economy, it has caused a ‘sudden stop’ and forced governments to bail-out employees at an unprecedented rate. However, in a way that no crisis has done before, it has presented every industry with an opportunity for growth. As operations stall, there is scope to review processes and adopt more sustainable and efficient practice in order to succeed in the ‘new normal’ that will arise after the pandemic. So, what is actually happening in the public and private sector and how is the legal sector keeping pace?

We saw in the previous instalment that governments were on the back foot when it came to sustainability. This article looks to outline some of the steps businesses are taking to progress their strategies moving into a sustainable era.

In the wild world of strategic business advice, leaps have been made by independent sustainability organisations. Most notably has been the growth of the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), the Energy Transmissions Commission (ETC), and Nordic Sustainability. IRENA is currently working across the globe on 7 initiatives geared towards developing renewable energy, and encouraging those with financial capability to realise sustainable ideas – they have even put together a post-Covid recovery plan.[i] The ETC, having taken a different approach, have outlined a plan based on the transition for net-zero[CA1] emissions by industry.[ii] Nordic Sustainability is a consultancy which uses sustainability to inform business strategies; they have paired with Future-Fit to further implement their advice. The growth and prominence of these institutions suggests that a structural change is underway, which is really exciting as they appear to be backed by investors.

Investors are becoming increasingly involved in the development and commercialisation of sustainable portfolios.[iii]Black Rock is the case in point here, teaming up with MSCI to create portfolios based on the ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance) rating, which is determined on the exposure of the asset to each risk. They claim that there has been a rise in clients seeking sustainable investment options and they have created a suite of portfolio opportunities to inter aliascreen for unwanted markets (tobacco, oil, etc.) and estimate the social value of particular investments.[iv]

This suggests that investors are taking the climate risk seriously and this commitment to sustainable investing is promising for emerging our new-age industry. However, it does raise an interesting moral question around traditional industries: do we remove capital from them in favour of their sustainable counterparts, thereby promoting new industrial ideals in businesses built from the ground up? Or, invest more in the struggling firms to afford them the capacity to conduct necessary innovation – thus preserving jobs and commercial infrastructure and the sunk costs of ongoing research projects. This is not something that one person can decide upon and I am grateful that I am a mere commentator here; it is interesting to consider and will depend, I believe, on the pressure investors levy to make their investments more ‘sustainable’.

[i] IRENA, Post-COVID recovery: an agenda for resilience, development and recovery (2020) <https://www.irena.org/publications/2020/Jun/Post-COVID-Recovery> accessed 06/2020 [ii] ETC, Reaching net-zero carbon emissions: mission possible (2020) <http://www.energy-transitions.org/mission-possible> accessed 06/2020 [iii] Mooney, A., Coronavirus forces investor rethink on social issues (FT, 2020) <https://www.ft.com/content/bc988e0e-687c-4c72-98eb-ae2595e29bee> accessed 06/2020 [iv] Kjellberg, S., Making sense of sustainable investing (Finimise, 2020)

Paris Agreement 2- success or not? - Laurence Chapman

Has the Paris Agreement been successful as a key model of whether international environmental agreements are effective in helping the law to adapt sufficiently to growing sustainability issues across the globe?

The ‘Post-Kyoto’ United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change goal to “devise a new global agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, with some legal elements, covering both developed and developing countries” (Climatica, 24th August 2017, was in fact “achieved in December 2015, when 195 countries adopted the Paris Agreement, an agreement praised as ‘historic’, ‘ambitious’ and the ‘greatest diplomatic success’. On the surface, it seems that the Paris Agreement was a successful diplomatic continuation from the Kyoto Protocol. However, meeting the 2 degrees C target is “unlikely”, there is no proper plan nor guidance and “withdrawal without sanctions” is possible. It seems then that the Paris Agreement is not likely to be a great success over the next few decades as the figures are not in its favour and withdrawal such as the USA is easily possible and could happen in more cases. However, there has not been enough time to properly assess how it is doing on a global scale and whether it is reducing emissions directly.

Another issue with the Paris Agreement is that it is only partially “legally binding”. The agreement itself is legally binding however, “the emission reduction targets are not”. This is a major issue with the Paris Agreement because the main focus was to reduce global emissions by a certain figure, two degrees centigrade. If these targets are not legally binding then countries can simply stay signed up to look favourably politically and internationally without truly meeting any targets. This makes the whole agreement seem rather false and weak. Whilst the targets set by individual nations “need to be “ambitious” and “represent a progression over time” (Paris Agreement quoted in ‘Climatica’) these words could be interpreted very differently by different nations to suit their requirements and views. There is also the added element of language barriers of course.

Soon after the agreement was adopted, top climate experts published an open letter to 'The Independent’ newspaper. In it, they warned that the agreement is “far too weak to prevent harmful impacts". They suggested that it was “insufficient” and not “sufficiently binding”. ‘Climate Action Tracker’ concluded that the pledges from Paris are nowhere near sufficient to ‘limit global warming’ to no more than two degrees centigrade. This significantly reduces the apparent effectiveness of the Paris Agreement because it seems that the targets are too hopeful and not backed up by sufficient planning nor sufficiently binding legislation over the countries signed up as seen with how easy withdrawal is and how countries can set any targets they like.

An article published in ‘Nature, Rogelj et al’ in June 2016 as cited by ‘Climatica’ concluded that “the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) will lead to a median warming of 2.6–3.1 degrees Celsius by 2100". This demonstrates just how far off the targets of the Paris Agreements are and how much more must be done with this agreement and with future ones to ensure they will be more reliable, however, we still have not been able to assess how effective the Paris Agreement is empirically because there simply has not been enough time since it was set in December 2015.

Overall, the Paris Agreement has not been successful as a key model of whether international environmental agreements are effective in helping the law to adapt sufficiently to growing sustainability issues across the globe yet. It seems that the agreement is not well grounded enough and lacks a clear and coherent plan which every country can stick to. It is also too flexible and not fully legally binding as withdrawal is arguably too easy ad countries can set their own targets against a vague description,“ambitious”, which could be interpreted very different by different nations and their respective legislative bodies. A revised Paris Agreement at the next meeting in 2020 which irons out these issues might be very beneficial and more realistic in terms of achieving the targets which should be the same or at least proportional to each individual country. Without meaning to perhaps, President Trump may be correct that the Paris Agreement is in need of revision not just regarding the economic prosperity of the United States.