Tag: Single-use Plastic

• Milk Wars

  ---

  More and more milk options appear every time I step foot in the supermarket, from cows milk to pea milk, the possibilities are almost endless. But which is best? This blog gets to the bottom of which milk is most sustainable.

  The following graph presents data gathered from AlgaeCal and the Current Environment Health Report 10, representing the average greenhouse gas emissions, water usage, protein content and calcium content of a glass of milk (240ml). Protein and calcium contents were chosen as they are the two nutritional values people tend to look for when consuming milk.

  

  Cows Milk

  At first glance, cows’ milk produces the highest amount of carbon emissions per glass, but when compared to its nutrient content, these values are significantly lower. This suggests that if you consume milk for the nutrient content, then it is far more eco-conscious to drink cows milk over alternatives like coconut or oat milk as the amount you would need to drink to reach your goal creates a larger effect than just drinking conventional milk.

  Oat Milk

  Oat milk has the lowest calcium content out of all the options presented, and per 1mg of calcium, it also has the highest carbon emissions (10.2 g) and water usage (0.9 L).

  Soya Milk

  Soy milk holds a strong case for its protein content, with 6.1g of protein per glass and only 5L of water, however, it does produce the second highest carbon emissions at first glance. Soy milk also contains the same amount of calcium as cows milk!

  Almond Milk

  It can be seen that almond milk presents the worst sustainability profile, with a single glass requiring 19 litres of water and producing 98g of CO2e for only 1g of protein. Having said this, per 1g of protein, almond milk contains the highest value of clcium (482mg).

  Pea Milk

  Pea milk contains the closest protein content to cows milk (7.5 compared to 8.2 respectively), however, the research into the wider impacts of pea extraction and production is limited and therefore, we must take the minimal facts with a pinch of salt. That being said, pea milk also offers one of the smallest green house gas emissions out of the options, with cows’ milk emitting 4.6 times more carbon emissions

  Coconut Milk

  Coconut milk has the smallest footprint but also the smallest nutritional value, so to get the same nutritional value as cows milk, you would need to drink 16.4 glasses which would produce 1,131.6g of CO2 emissions! Far higher than a glass of cows milk (330g CO2e), this therefore does not present a sustainable options for the planet or ourselves.

  Conclusion

  The results from this analysis vary depending on the component of milk you value the most (protein or calcium content). It is clear that coconut milk is the least sustainable option in terms of GHG emissions when you are looking for the highest possible protein content, but when looking for the highest possible calcium content, pea milk produces the lowest carbon emissions. On the other hand, water usage is lowest in coconut milk is lowest when measuring calcium per mg, but in soy when analysing protein per gram.

  Overall, I would conclude that soy milk is the most sustainable milk option as it provides the same value of calcium as conventional cows milk, but also shows low or relitevly low water usuage and carbon emissions in both cases. However, your impact will vary depending on what you wish to get from consuming milk.

  Don’t forget, your impact doesn’t stop with the type of milk you buy; the packaging it comes in and the location at which it is produced all contribute to the complete impact. I have yet to see an alternative milk option in a supermarket which is packaged in a glass bottle.

  Raw data

  

  Green: best option in category

  Red: worst option in category

  Comment what your milk of choice is!

  11th Mar 2025

  Alternative Milk, Consumerism, Cows milk, Data, Milk, Overconsumption, Plastic, Quantatative Data, Recycle Economy, Single-use Plastic, Waste

  ---

• Unilever Have Gone Wild

  ---

  

  

  In the sustainable beauty space, there has been a lot of noise regarding Wild, the refillable personal care company, being sold to Unilever, a leading consumer goods company. This blog discusses this transition and what it means for Earth and its inhabitants.

  Who are Unilever?

  Unilever labels itself as being one of the world’s largest consumer goods companies. This title is very vague as it sells everything from ice cream to face cream. They simply provide a platform for companies to distribute their products to individual customers rather than businesses.

  Unilever convey the following narrative: “…our belief that doing business the right way drives superior business performance”. They believe that delivering impact by making sustainability progress integral to businesses is the best way to create change; outlining long-term visions (which inevitably keep getting pushed back) is not enough. Consistent action must be taken.

  Unilever pushes their businesses to:

  • Become net zero throughout their value chains
  • Create resilient and regenerative natural and agricultural ecosystems
  • End plastic pollution through reduction, circulation and collaboration
  • Ensure workers have decent livelihoods

  They do this by:

  • Becoming more focused on resource allocation to speed up sustainability progress
  • Outlining more urgent actions with roadmaps, accountability and rewards
  • Becoming more systematic in their advocacy through collaboration

  Despite this, there is little evidence to suggest that anything is in place to pursue these actions.

  Uncertainty at Unilever

  Ben and Jerry’s, a brand I have praised before on this blog, is owned by Unilever. However, this relationship is heading for divorce due to B&J suing Unilever for threatening staff and board members with “professional reprisals” if they were to advocate for a cease-fire in Gaza. Ben and Jerry’s truly focus on doing what is right, and much of this involves advocating and campaigning for change, removing this voice defies each and every value B&J has, and they simply won’t stand for it.

  Similarly, while Unilever’s Chief Business Operations and Supply Chain Officer made a statement to say Unilever does not condone the war in Ukraine, they will still continue to operate in Russia. The reason is they believe they will be “abandoning our people and brands” if they do otherwise, or as you may read it, their sales.

  Third, Greenpeace found that Unilever sells 1,700 highly polluting plastic sachets every second. For a company focused on ending plastic pollution, they have a long way to go.

  Finally, in 2023, the BBC found that more than 70 women in tea plantations (owned by Unilever and James Finlay) in Kenya had been abused by their managers. These women were left with no choice but to meet these sexual demands to guarantee an income as work was scarce. Whilst the BBC was investigating this case, Unilever claimed they were shocked and saddened by the allegations, yet they sold the tea operation in Kenya whilst under investigation.

  Who are Wild?

  Wild are a beauty brand that focuses on reducing waste by creating a refillable product powered by nature. They are best known for their deodorant, but they also offer body wash, hand wash and lip balm. Wild aims to reduce the number of bathroom products thrown away each year; they focus on quality without compromising our Earth. They’ve taken out all single-use plastics and created aluminium cases made to last a lifetime, with biodegradable refills which can be composted with food waste when finished. Not only is the packaging eco-friendly, but all the ingredients are natural, cruelty-free and vegan. It doesn’t end there! For every purchase on their website, a tree is planted on your behalf. Wild are a Certified B corporation, and there are no plans to remove this certification through this transition to Unilever’s portfolio.

  The paradox

  If you already have a wild case, and you are wanting to switch to an alternative brand due to the ethical concerns of this transition, then you are creating waste from something that is supposed to be zero-waste. But if you continue to support a business which is receiving it orders from someone who does not hold the same values, then we are still giving power to the those who are killing the planet, ecosystems and people.

  What do I do?

  It is clear that Unilever’s actions do not align with its claims, whether that be what it advocates for or the treatment of staff. However, that is not the case for Wild. It’s difficult to understand the reasoning behind this transition as Wild has yet to comment on the partnership, but most likely, they wish to expand their market reach and make growth easier. Which, for a brand that focuses on making the world a better place, is a huge step towards transformative change. Having said this, I can’t help but think Unilever have invested in Wild to increase its sustainability impact without actually making any changes.

  Like I’ve said before, being sustainable isn’t about being perfect in your actions, it’s about making more and more choices which benefit everyone and everything, not the few.

  7th Mar 2025

  Beauty, Circular Economy, Consumerism, Overconsumption, Recycle Economy, Single-use Plastic, Sustainable Development, Waste, Zero-waste

  ---