Ecological debt: how we live beyond our means — using in just 123 days the resources meant to last a year
Overshoot Day in Italy fell on May 3 this year. Three days earlier than in 2025, when it occurred on May 6. From that day onward, Italy has been symbolically living on credit from the planet, having exhausted the water, energy, and natural resources that the Earth can regenerate in a full year.
An ecological debt that places Italy broadly in line with other European countries, though still lagging behind those with later Overshoot Days.
France reached its Overshoot Day earlier, on April 24. Germany (May 10), the United Kingdom (May 22), and Spain (June 4) follow — reflecting a comparatively greater ability to balance consumption with regeneration. Luxembourg, however, reached its Overshoot Day as early as February, while Qatar’s falls on February 4.
Globally, in the early 1970s, Overshoot Day fell in late December (December 25 in 1971). By 1990, it had already moved to mid-October.
Entering the phase of overexploitation
The data is compiled by the Global Footprint Network, an international research organisation that measures countries’ ecological footprints by comparing their natural resource consumption with the planet’s capacity to regenerate them.
For Italy, this means that in just over four months, the country has consumed what the Earth can regenerate in an entire year. From that point forward, demand exceeds supply — and the deficit accumulates.
This imbalance is not abstract. It materialises as environmental degradation, biodiversity loss, waste accumulation, greenhouse gas build-up, and land consumption.
The impact of our lifestyles
The numbers speak clearly: if every person on Earth adopted our consumption patterns, we would need about 2.7 planets to stay in balance.
This imbalance is not accidental — it is structural. It reflects production and consumption systems built on continuous growth, where demand routinely exceeds actual needs and efficiency gains are often offset by increased use.
“Much of the ‘natural’ capital upon which so much of human wellbeing and economic activity depends — water, land, the air and atmosphere, biodiversity and marine resources — continues its seemingly inexorable decline. The cost of inaction and the price humanity will eventually pay is likely to dwarf the cost of swift and decisive action now.” — Achim Steiner, former UNEP Executive Director
Move the date later in the year
The goal is simple: move the date later in the year.
But doing so requires more than a checklist of good intentions — it demands a shift in how systems are designed and how value is defined.
It means transitioning from linear to circular models, where waste is reduced at the source rather than managed downstream. It means rethinking energy, food, and mobility systems so that efficiency is not just technological, but cultural. And it means designing cities that reduce the need for consumption, not just optimise it.
And it also means confronting everyday habits — from what we buy to how we eat — recognising that individual choices, while limited on their own, become powerful when aligned with systemic change.
Even small shifts, when scaled, can move the date forward by days. Structural transformation can move it by months.
Final thoughts
Italy’s Overshoot Day is not meant to be observed — it is meant to be reversed.
Yet none of this is possible without acknowledging a harder truth: moving the date means moving our habits.
The same systems that built prosperity now threaten to undermine it.
But systems are not fixed. They can be redesigned.
The choice is ours: continue consuming as if tomorrow will never come, or recognise that every day moved later is a day earned back for future generations.
Overshoot Day in Italy arrived three days earlier this year. Next year, it could arrive later.
In essence, we need to ask: what kind of world do we want?
An update on labour exploitation, modern-day slavery and human rights
On May 1st, we celebrate labour. But it may be more honest to look at how that work exists.
Because in 2026, labour exploitation has not disappeared. It has become more complex, more fragmented — and easier to ignore.
The system hasn’t changed. It has scaled.
Investigations into global supply chains continue to confirm what is often treated as an exception: exploitation is not on the margins of production. It sits at its centre.
From garments to electronics, companies still achieve cost efficiency, in part, through pressure that travels down the chain — until it reaches those with the least power to resist it.
Labour — What the system depends on
Recent benchmarks by KnowTheChain, a project of the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, offer a useful lens.
Across industries, performance remains low. In the food and beverage sector, reports from Brazil’s coffee production describe working weeks stretching beyond legal limits, degrading living conditions, and cases of debt bondage. In technology manufacturing, only a handful of companies score above average — and none adequately respond to specific allegations of forced labour.
Even where policies exist, enforcement is inconsistent. And the model itself — particularly just-in-time production — continues to create conditions where abuse becomes more likely, not less.
The workers the system relies on most
Migrant labour sits at the core of many of these sectors: construction, agriculture, logistics, care.
And yet, it is also where vulnerability concentrates.
Many workers arrive already in debt, having paid high recruitment fees for jobs that do not match what was promised. Once employed, their position is often tied to temporary visas, employer sponsorship, or informal arrangements that make leaving difficult and speaking out risky.
What follows is not always visible, but it is consistent: wage theft, excessive hours, unsafe conditions, restricted movement.
Between 2022 and 2025, authorities and researchers have recorded thousands of cases globally, with agriculture and construction showing the highest concentration. Most involve violations that are not exceptional, but systemic — embedded in how labour is managed, priced, and controlled.
Workers are essential to the system. But remain structurally exposed within it.
Italy: luxury and labour exploitation, side by side
Closer to home, investigations between 2025 and 2026 have made this contradiction harder to ignore.
In subcontracted workshops supplying major luxury brands, authorities uncovered what they described as “heavy exploitation” of migrant workers — often underpaid, sometimes undocumented, producing goods sold at exponentially higher prices.
At the same time, some brand units have been placed under administration due to labour abuses, while others have cut large numbers of suppliers following violations.
These are not isolated incidents.
Prosecutors have pointed instead to a “generalised manufacturing method”— a system where responsibility fragments across layers of subcontracting, and where visibility fades as production moves further away from the brand.
Luxury, in this context, does not sit apart from exploitation. It can exist alongside it.
The pressure behind the product
Speed drives part of this dynamic. The rise of ultra-fast fashion has intensified cost pressure across supply chains, forcing suppliers into continuous price reductions and unstable production cycles. Those at the top transfer downward what they cannot absorb — through lower wages, longer hours, and compromised conditions.
This is not an unintended outcome. It is the economic logic of scale and acceleration.
Transparency, but on whose terms?
There are signs of movement.
The European Union is advancing toward stricter supply chain traceability, and some brands have begun mapping their networks more systematically. In Italy, a recent agreement introduced a voluntary system for suppliers to disclose labour conditions and obtain certification.
Transparency is still, in many cases, a choice — not an obligation. And beyond the first tier of suppliers, visibility remains limited. At the same time, new regulations are emerging globally. Investigations into forced labour are increasing, and legislative frameworks are slowly taking shape.
But the pace of regulation does not yet match the speed of production.
What remains unchanged
This creates a familiar contradiction. Even as sustainability becomes a dominant narrative, labour conditions often remain secondary:
supply chains extend beyond clear accountability
companies regularly outsource responsibility
“green” transitions risk, excluding the very workers they depend on
In fact, what is presented as progress does not always translate into protection.
What May 1st should remind us
In conclusion, labour exploitation today is not hidden because it is rare. It is hidden because it is structural.
It exists in subcontracting. In pricing models. In the distance—geographical and economic—between brands and workers.
And often, in the gap between what is communicated and what is practised.
On a day that celebrates workers, the question is not only how far we have come.
It is also: who remains invisible in the system we continue to participate in?
Between greenwashing and collapse: listening to what the signals really say
Happy Earth Day 2026? That’s the question we need to ask ourselves.
The UN Environment Programme titled its 22 April newsletter: “Happy Earth Day! Listening to the planet’s signals.” Are we still at this point? Still marking Earth Day this way? Celebrating?
The very next lines of the same newsletter list the signals: rising temperatures, biodiversity loss, pollution, extreme heat. It’s hard to find happiness — or cause for celebration — in that list.
So, happy for what? What are we actually celebrating? The fact that the planet is still here? Or our own inaction?
The net zero scam
Kevin Anderson, a climate scientist, offers a blunt answer: our leaders have chosen to fail on climate change for thirty years. Every single metric is pointing in the wrong direction. Even countries like China, which are doing relatively well in terms of reductions, are still far from where they should be.
“If the problem gets harder every single year,” Anderson says, “I don’t call that progress. Progress is only when you deliver what you have to.” In his view, the widely touted goal of net zero by 2050 is a scam — because until we eliminate fossil fuels and significantly cut agricultural emissions, temperatures will just keep rising. And the climate will just keep changing.
50% chance of AMOC collapse
Meanwhile, inThe Guardian, George Monbiot warns that a catastrophic event is already upon us — yet we’re barely hearing about it. He points to the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), the ocean current that delivers heat from the tropics to the North Atlantic. The first study suggesting AMOC could have an “on” and “off” state was published in 1961. For decades, a human-induced collapse was considered a “low-probability, high-impact” event — devastating, but unlikely. That has changed. Recent research now describes it as a “high-probability, high-impact” threat. Last week, Professor Stefan Rahmstorf, a leading expert on the subject, put the chances of a shutdown at over 50%, with the tipping point potentially arriving “in the middle of this century.”
If AMOC collapses, northern Europe could see a massive drop in winter temperatures, and the Amazon’s water cycles could be so disrupted that the rainforest itself might tip into cascading collapse.
Final thoughts
From a 50% chance of AMOC collapse to net zero called a scam — the gap between celebration and reality has never been wider.
Yet there we were, on Earth Day 2026, reading cheerful newsletter subject lines while scientists warned that we’re drifting toward a climate tipping point with better-than-even odds.
Second part — Notes from the Scientific and informative day promoted by the Microplastics on Human Health Committee with the municipality of Milan
After Monday’s post on research and scenarios, we turn to a more urgent question: are there realistic solutions to micro and nanoplastics?
This is the second part of the second annual outreach conference on micro- and nanoplastics, organised by the Microplastics on Human Health Committee in collaboration with the Municipality of Milan. (You can read part. 1 here).
Exploring ideas and solutions to micro and nanoplastics.
The recovery of micro- and nanoplastics in biomethane production
Alessandro Daneu, Environmental Engineer
He focused on organic wastewater treatment through anaerobic digestion for biogas and biomethane production. This is not only an excellent example of circular economy but also — with appropriate process modifications — a potential solution to reduce the dispersion of micro- and nanoplastics while simultaneously using them to increase biomethane production. These solutions are currently being tested and patented, further confirmed by collaboration with Tongji University in Shanghai.
The starting problem is simple: We are immersed in plastic. Ultimately, it has to go somewhere.
Today, we recover large, visible plastic at collection centres. In some European countries, every plastic number has its own container. When plastic is mixed, separation systems exist — but recovery is very difficult. The only plastic easily recoverable is PET (bottles).
Italy is at the forefront of PET recovery, recovering more than 50% — higher than the European requirement.
Plastics that aren’t recovered end up in waste-to-energy plants. Since they’re a petroleum derivative, combustion is the most appropriate use.
The real problem is micro- and nanoplastics — about which we know little. Plastics from organic waste most easily enter the water cycle. The challenge is separating plastics without shredding them, as was once done.
Biomethane as an opportunity for Europe:
It represents the valorisation of waste. These are molecules that, if recovered, do not enter the environment. The nitrogen contained in organic proteins is transformed into ammonia, which can create environmental problems. Here, ammonia recovery is also possible. From an energy perspective, biomethane replaces natural methane — reducing foreign dependence, creating a domestic product, and providing clean fuel recovered from recycling.
Today, many freight trucks are methane-powered, and a large portion run on biomethane.
Energy is recovered and sold. Fertilisers can be made. Ammonia can be recovered as bioammonia. By-products that can be reused.
FMSW (municipal organic waste). Initial separation is important because all sorts of things end up in the organic waste. The recycling process does not consume external water.
Debunking some myths:
• Separating macroplastics does not eliminate microplastics and nanoplastics — they still end up in our waters. • The only way to intercept them is in purifiers, wastewater, and water treatment processes. • Biodegradable or compostable plastic does not solve the problem. We get microplastics and nanoplastics anyway. • The downstream purifier does not solve the problem on its own unless appropriate treatment policies are implemented. • Anaerobic digestion does not solve the entire problem — in fact, it could create one due to ammonia.
What can we do: solutions to micro and nanoplastics
PHAs and microplastics: sustainable solutions for agriculture and design
Eligio Martini, Chemical Engineer and Maip group president
The accumulation of microplastics in agricultural soils is an emerging problem threatening soil fertility, crop health, and food security. Conventional plastics used in agriculture — mulch films, greenhouse films, irrigation materials — fragment and persist in the environment for a long time.
Enter PHAs (polyhydroxyalkanoates): bioplastics of microbial origin, completely biodegradable in soil. A promising alternative.
The confusion around “bioplastics” The term isn’t accurate. “Bioplastics” means everything:
Some are of natural origin (not from oil).
Some are biodegradable in specific conditions.
But not all bioplastics are biodegradable.
Some bioplastics come from oil and are biodegradable.
Real bioplastics are both natural in origin and biodegradable.
What is PHA?
A natural polymer. Exists in nature. Biodegradable. Forms through fermentation — a natural process. Transformation of a polymer into biomass, water, and carbon dioxide.
PHA is a family of polymers. Fermenters are used to produce it, but the process is natural. Polyester is a large family of materials that can be more or less harmful. Polyester is the chemical characteristic of the material. The chemical structure makes it a polyester, but there are different kinds of polyesters.
Why PHA matters: Unlike PLA (which is not biodegradable everywhere and lasts like traditional plastic), PHA is biodegradable under all conditions—controlled or not by man.
Truly biodegradable materials:
Pure cellulose (paper, not wood)
Rice starch
PHA
PHA is the only natural material that can be processed like plastic but is not plastic. It releases no microplastics. Nothing toxic for the environment.
A striking statistic: All the plastic islands we see in the seas? Only 2% of the plastic present in the water. PHA would help solve the rest.
Applications are vast: Pens, cosmetics, packaging, bioremediation of the seas, agriculture — where plastic gets discarded and never collected.
So why aren’t we using PHA everywhere? It’s called “the sleeping giant” — quite unknown, perhaps to emphasise its potential but limited use. It is more expensive than plastic, so it’s used for high-value items.
The challenge: passing the concept that even if it costs more, the long-term positive effects are worth it.
Note: The MAIP Group (European) is one of the few producers of PHA.
The microplastic-free lamp and fashion from organic farming and certified forests
Natasha Calandrino Van Kleef and Carlo Covini — Sustainable design experts, NKV and Lenzing
Natasha presented the design of a design object — the “Sibilla” lamp prototype — entirely made with a process that produces no microplastics throughout the entire product cycle.
Together with Carlo Covini (Lenzing manager), she also illustrated a virtuous example of completely natural clothing, including all its components and therefore certifiable: “Garments from Organic Farming and Certified Forests.”
Key distinction: biodegradable vs. compostable
Biodegradable: a natural process (light, water, air)
Compostable: an industrial process
This distinction forms the backdrop to the new NKV Fashion & Lenzing project — the result of years of research into microplastic pollution in fashion.
What they discussed: Garments made from 100% hemp or 100% organic cotton, both GOTS (Global Organic Textile Standard) certified. Sewn with innovative TENCEL™ Lyocell sewing thread from certified forests.
The bigger picture: Cellulosic fibres make up only 6% of the market. Meanwhile, synthetic fibre production is increasing.
Biochar and innovative solutions
Dalia Benefatto — Sustainable economy expert
She explained the nature of biochar: a vegetable carbon obtained from the pyrolysis of agricultural waste and organic residues.
Why biochar is promising: The production process has particularly attractive environmental characteristics — it co-produces renewable energy and is carbon-negative.
But most importantly, biochar is a prime tool for removing micro- and nanoplastics from the environment.
Milestones achieved and future potential Among the advantages of biochar: its use as a carbon-negative pigment for dyeing — an eco-friendly and functional alternative.
The analysis addresses pressing challenges, exploring its potential effectiveness in mitigating PFAS. An experimental study is proposed on cotton-polyester blend fabrics, with the aim of transforming them into new by-products while eliminating the release of microplastics.
Key concept: Return economy
Waste as a resource
Waste valorisation
And: biochar removes CO₂ from the atmosphere.
Innovation and process in hospitals
Elena Bottinelli — Director, Villa Erbosa – San Donato group
She emphasised that those working in the healthcare sector cannot ignore the One Health approach — the interconnection between human health, animal health, and environmental health.
The key question: How are hospitals implementing initiatives to reduce their environmental impact?
The scale of the problem: 25% of hospital waste is plastic.
The challenge: Reducing plastic consumption while maintaining cost-effectiveness and sterility — guaranteed by the use of disposable products.
The proposal: Process innovations that combine plastic reduction with organisational efficiency, resulting in positive impacts on overall sustainability. Evidence from best practices.
Solutions to micro and nanoplastics — Final thoughts
So yes, solutions to micro and nanoplastics exist. The question is whether we — citizens, institutions, industries — are willing to adopt them before the system reaches its limits.
Time is not on our side.
From biomethane recovery to PHA, from biochar to circular processes, the ideas are there. But they remain fragmented — often expensive, often limited in scale, often carried forward by the same actors.
And this is where a familiar discomfort returns.
When we hear about certifications, “certified forests”, biodegradable materials, something doesn’t fully settle. Not because these solutions are false. But because we have learned how easily they can be absorbed into narratives that promise change without transforming the system.
Greenwashing wasn’t named here either. But again, it lingered.
In sectors like fashion, the gap is still evident. Beyond pilot projects and virtuous examples, the structural issues remain: overproduction, waste, and a system that continues to generate the problem faster than it can solve it.
So the question is no longer whether solutions exist. It is whether we are ready to recognise the difference between solutions and stories — and who benefits when we confuse the two.
Scientific and informative day promoted by the Microplastics on Human Health Committee with the municipality of Milan
This is the second annual outreach conference on micro- and nanoplastics, organised by the Microplastics on Human Health Committee in collaboration with the Municipality of Milan.
Last year’s conference opened the conversation — covered in a three-part series: Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.
Why this event? Because scientific knowledge is often poorly communicated. Misinformation is widespread.
This topic spans multiple domains: • effects on human health • the biological world • the industrial world • disposal and reuse of plastic • the fashion world
The goal is simple but essential: to share accurate information with the public and with institutions. You can watch the event here.
The weight of things: a brief history of anthropogenic mass
Telmo Pievani – professor of philosophy of biological sciences, University of Padua.
He opens the panel.
What is plastic? He starts with a quote:
“The material that nature forgot to invent.”
On one hand, it’s a sign of human inventiveness — the creation of a democratic material. On the other hand, it also has a dark side: if nature didn’t invent it, it means there are no bacteria capable of destroying it.
How long have we been inventing materials that nature forgot to invent? We have become physiologically dependent on technology. Just think of something as basic as cooking. We changed the world through technology, and we have become dependent on it. Now, we must learn to interact with nature in a virtuous way.
The problem is time. Let’s consider the human impact on the environment: from the 1950s onwards, there has been a great acceleration. In the last three generations, the human impact on the planet has gone out of control.
The weight of human artefacts used in our lives has exceeded the combined weight of all the plants, organisms, and microorganisms on Earth. (Ron Milo, study published in Nature, December 2020).
If we continue like this, by 2050, there will be more plastic than fish in the sea.
We must learn to make peace with nature. Nature-based solutions — as explored by Frances Arnold. She has found enzymes capable of reducing pollutants.
So, back to where we started: this, too, was not invented by nature, but it is a solution. Harnold exploited evolution to produce an enzyme that nature hadn’t invented. Researchers are now looking for bacteria capable of degrading plastic.
The attractiveness of plastic and its environmental implications, with particular reference to water
Nicoletta Ancona – Curator of the Aquarium and Civic Hydrological Station of Milan.
Plastics — what are they? Polymers — very long chains. Many different substances that we group together under a single name.
They have responded to human needs in every circumstance, as they are very cheap materials. The main problem issingle-use plastic — it degrades very slowly. Therefore, its use must be severely limited.
Plastic production is rapidly increasing. But where does all this plastic end up? Only a tiny portion is recovered. The rest is dispersed everywhere, through the water cycle. Concentrations of plastic are found everywhere. Microplastics are the most damaging. Micro- and nanoplastics are much less visible but make up a significant portion of our diet. It starts with filter feeders — oysters, shellfish, whales — so they enter the food chain. There are also substances that bind to plastic and amplify its harmful effects.
So, there is an ethical and health issue. It is important to inform, raise awareness, and educate. Let’s start from the bottom — from our daily lives — to limiting plastics.
A striking note: It’s sad to hear that in a facility like the Aquarium, they still use plastic cups for coffee. Due to existing agreements, bla bla bla… When we say the system is designed to fail, are we really wrong?
The hidden threats of plastics on human health
Prof. Claudio Fenizia – Professor of Immunology, University of Milan
Threats of plastic to human health. Highlighting the critical issues.
How plastics enter the body: Plastics enter through inhalation, food, food and beverage containers, food storage containers, and transdermal application. Plastics have been found in blood, testes, placenta, and amniotic fluid. What is the effect? • In atherosclerotic plaques, a higher concentration of plastic corresponds to greater inflammation. • Plastic has been found in tumour tissue. • A higher amount of plastic in the brain corresponds to a higher proportion of individuals with disorders such as senile dementia.
But – and this is key – Until the causal mechanism is identified, the effect cannot be demonstrated. Or rather: it must be defined whether plastic is the cause or the effect of inflammation or disease.
Environment, water and health
Prof. Caterina La Porta – Professor of Pathology, University of Milan
The environment we live in determines our health. A single vision of health emerges — One health.
Water is one of the most important vectors of exposure. We drink. We bathe. We wash our clothes. Everything in the environment reaches us.
Heavy metals, pesticides, and organic compounds accumulate in the environment. This isn’t just an environmental problem — it’s becoming a health issue.
Regarding the impact of micro- and nanoplastics, we need to determine whether there is correlation or causality. Whether there is a single effect or bioaccumulation.
The microbiota — the complex network of bacteria, fungi, and viruses present in our intestines — is key. Studies are being conducted to understand what happens with microplastics, which function as a concentration of toxic substances.
Climate change multiplies the risk. For example, drought increases concentration.
Education means making it clear that there is a problem. And making the right choice together.
What kind of future do we want?
Are PFAS and plastics really eternal pollutants?
Prof. Edoardo Puglisi – Professor of Agricultural Microbiology, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Cremona
The question — which may seem philosophical, but it’s a scientific one — concerns whether we can solve the problems posed by these invaders.
First, a distinction: pollutant vs. contaminant. When we talk about pollution, we use the words pollutant and contaminant in the same way, as synonyms. Technically, they are two different things.
• Contaminant: a natural or man-made substance that reaches a certain threshold. • Pollutant: when that substance reaches levels high enough to cause adverse effects.
Another related issue is natural vs. synthetic substances. There’s a tendency to think that natural substances are less toxic, but this isn’t always true. We must have a scientific approach that allows us to understand how and to what extent substances can be dangerous.
Some natural substances are much more toxic than chemical ones. In science, it’s best not to have multiple words that mean the same thing.
Another key distinction: danger vs. risk
• Danger: a substance that is toxic and can be dangerous to humans and the environment. • Risk: depends on exposure. Risk combines danger and exposure. How much we are exposed to these substances. Risk assessment involves addressing these two elements.
A tiger can be dangerous, but the risk depends on the exposure. The same goes for pollutants.
As a microbiologist, the answer he tries to give as to whether PFAS are truly contaminants starts from the observation of microorganisms. These are the oldest organisms on Earth. They are a constant with an enormous capacity to adapt, even to new invaders.
New substances are called xenobiotics — substances that have never existed on Earth. Like PFAS, like plastics. Organisms were unaware of them, but they learned to interact with them.
Microorganisms are, therefore, allies in remediation. If we are dealing with an organic pollutant, microorganisms can learn to degrade and consume it. There is a coevolution between microorganisms and the xenobiotics existing in the environment. New metabolic pathways are developing that can lead to degradation.
What are PFAS?
PFAS are a highly heterogeneous family of chemical molecules containing a covalent bond between carbon and fluorine. They are called “eternal pollutants” because they are difficult to degrade.
PFAS and microplastics move through the environment and enter humans. Plastics tend to become micro- and nanoplastics. The smaller they are, the more they tend to accumulate.
Plastifera, the communities of bacteria and microscopic fungi that have learned to colonise plastics. The degradation of plastics is still very limited. But fungi are beginning to degrade plastics.
Remediation is possible PFAS can be remediated. The costs are high, but the costs associated with pollution are even higher. There are enzymes that have learned to colonise PFAS.
Case study: Veneto In Veneto, there has been a significant accumulation of PFAS in water and the environment. A study is underway to identify degradation genes.
His conclusion: He is confident that solutions can be found to degrade PFAS.
Micro and nanoplastics — closing notes
If by 2050 we’ll have more plastic than fish in the sea, these bacteria need to hurry up.
From Pievani’s “material that nature forgot to invent” to Puglisi’s microbes slowly learning to eat it, one thing is clear: nature is trying to catch up. But time is not on our side.
We left the panel with more questions than answers— Not just about causality and bioaccumulation, but about who to trust. Greenwashing wasn’t mentioned by name, but it hung in the air like the plastic cups of the Aquarium.
—
Coming Wednesday: Micro and nanoplastics: what can we actually do? From daily choices to institutional action.
