Considering Waste Management as a Sustainable Tool Towards Curbing Climate Change Impacts

Article / Report

Impact on increased knowledge and understanding as a result of the case study

Increase Awareness

Impact on the ease of innovation, and facilitating uptake of innovations

Innovation

Reduced green house gas emissions released into the biosphere

Reduce Emissions (SDG13)

Reduced use of virgin materials and/or an increase of the use of secondary and bio-based materials

Reduce Material Consumption (SDG12)

Minimise waste through diversion: Instead of sending waste to landfill, it is redirected into other industrial processes for handling, treatment, recycling, recovery, or reuse in various forms. 

Minimise waste through design: At the outset of a process of project, plan and design such that there is zero waste or minimal waste during production, use, and at end of life. 

Minimise Waste (SDG12)

Recover waste energy or generate fuels and energy from waste streams

Energy recovery from waste

Using waste materials that have been processed and recycled to produce new products within other industries

Using open loop recycled materials

Data, knowledge & information sharing

Cycle strategies aim to cycle and reuse materials at their highest value: they maximise the volume of secondary materials re-entering the economy, ultimately minimising the need for virgin material inputs and therefore also narrowing flows. Of course, virgin materials will always be needed to a degree: all materials degrade and can’t be cycled infinitely, use energy, and require blending with virgin materials to maintain strength and functionality.

Cycle

Impacts

small_climate-4803653_640.jpg

thumbnail_climate-4803653_640.jpg

climate-4803653_640.jpg

A framework of policy instruments that enabled and encourage the transition to the circular economy

Policy Instruments

medium_image-20160922-22514-1aqaw5j.jpg

small_image-20160922-22514-1aqaw5j.jpg

thumbnail_image-20160922-22514-1aqaw5j.jpg

image-20160922-22514-1aqaw5j.jpg

A framework of policy instruments that enable and stimulate the transition to the circular economy

The principles of a circular economy concern designing out waste, regenerating ecosystems and keeping items in use. Decoupling the economy from material flows—improving the rate of resource productivity faster than the economic growth rate—is also a consistent guide. By evolving with the growing number of applications of circular economy principles, and consolidating these strategies across thematic areas, Circle Economy’s Key Elements Framework (KE) renders the elements of the circular economy salient and serves as a basis to derive contextual strategies and interventions. 


The Framework consists of:
- Core Elements: Activities directly handling product or material flows; and uniquely,
- Enabling Elements: those that remove obstacles for core actors.


Key elements of the circular economy

large_photo-1515534238346-fb9ae3e399d0.jpg

medium_photo-1515534238346-fb9ae3e399d0.jpg

small_photo-1515534238346-fb9ae3e399d0.jpg

thumbnail_photo-1515534238346-fb9ae3e399d0.jpg

photo-1515534238346-fb9ae3e399d0.jpg

Circle Economy's framework of strategies and activities that define the circular economy

![Screen Shot 2024-10-21 at 16.53.12.png](https://goldilocks-images.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/Screen_Shot_2024_10_21_at_16_53_12_12858da6aa.png)

Based on the work of [Bocken et al. (2016)](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309699661_Product_design_and_business_model_strategies_for_a_circular_economy), the Four Flows Framework serves as a simple framework for managing resource flows in a circular economy by using less (Narrow), using for longer (Slow), using again (Cycle), and using clean, regenerative materials and energy (Regenerate).

These different principles of circular economy can be applied to our socioeconomic metabolism: we can design stocks like buildings, infrastructure, machinery, and vehicles to be rich resource mines for the future, and design manufactured goods and consumables to be cycled and made regenerative. Furthermore, the focus must also centre on getting more value out of fewer materials. Achieving the aims of a circular economy—minimising material use, regenerating the Earth, and preventing material losses—can be done through these four key strategies mentioned above.

Source: Circle Economy. (2023). *[The circularity gap report 2023](https://www.circularity-gap.world/2023)* (p.22). Amsterdam: Circle Economy. 

Four Flows Framework

medium_Screen Shot 2024-10-21 at 16.53.12.png

small_Screen Shot 2024-10-21 at 16.53.12.png

thumbnail_Screen Shot 2024-10-21 at 16.53.12.png

Screen Shot 2024-10-21 at 16.53.12.png

Access through your institutionVolume 14, Issue 2, February 2010, Pages 798-805https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2009.10.010Get rights and contentView full text

  Plastic waste is a huge problem in the world. Because of its durability, plastic waste accumulated in landfills and oceans tends to be trapped for centuries, causing a global environmental crisis. Even though we produce about 300 million tons of plastic waste each year, only 9% is recycled. But why are we only recycling so little? The reason is the current inefficiency and high cost of recycling plastic waste, resulting in a lack of incentives. Recently, researchers from Washington State University discovered a more efficient method that can drastically improve the efficiency of chemically recycling plastic waste. Currently, there are three types of plastic waste recycling: mechanical recycling, incineration, and chemical recycling. Mechanical recycling is the most widely used recycling option, and it involves mechanically grinding or compounding plastic waste for re-use in similar products. However, this process will result in poorer plastic quality, and thus these recycled products are not widely used by industries. Incineration can convert plastic waste into heat and electricity, but the process may result in the emission of toxic pollutants such as acid gases and heavy metals. Therefore, the last option, chemical recycling, where plastics are converted to fuels, is considered to be the most promising plastic waste recycling process with the least adverse effects. However, the current technology of chemical recycling requires extremely high temperatures (over 300°C), which is expensive and inefficient.  In order to improve this, these researchers investigated the effects of using different metals as catalysts, which are materials that can speed up the conversion process, while also varying other process conditions such as temperature and pressure. They discovered that, using a combination of ruthenium metal and carbon as the catalyst, they can convert 90% of plastic waste into fuel in just one hour, at a lower temperature of 220°C. This condition is significantly more efficient and cost-effective than the current chemical recycling standard. If we continue our current rate of only recycling 9% of plastic waste, our ocean will contain more plastic than fish by 2050. This new discovery may provide a promising and more incentivized approach for ramping up the recycling process of plastics in the near future. These researchers are now working on trying to scale up and commercialize this process, which will be very useful in the global goal of reducing plastic waste.  The first author of the study, Chuhua Jia, is a PhD student in the Department of Chemical Engineering at Washington State University. Managing Correspondent: Wei Li  Press Article: Plastic waste can now be turned into jet fuel in one hour, The Academic Times.  Original Article:Deconstruction of high-density polyethylene into liquid hydrocarbon fuels and lubricants by hydrogenolysis over Ru catalyst, Chem Catalysis. Image Credit: RitaE from Pixabay  





 Renewable energy sources (RES) supply 14% of the total world energy demand. RES are biomass, hydropower, geothermal, solar, wind, and marine energies. The renewables are the primary, domestic and clean or inexhaustible energy resources. The percentage share of biomass was 62.1% of total renewable energy sources in 1995. Large-scale hydropower supplies 20 percent of global electricity. Wind power in coastal and other windy regions is promising as well. 

 

     Did you know the ♻ symbol doesn’t mean something is actually recyclable? Play our trashy garbage-sorting game. Then, read on about how we got here, and what can be done.  Trash    Drag each item where you think it belongs  Milk jug  Peanut butter jar  Water bottle  Shampoo bottle  Snack bag  Diaper  Plastic bag  Bubble mailer  Foam cup  Single-use utensil  Yogurt cup  Takeout container  Berry box     Recycling          By Winston Choi-Schagrin and Hiroko TabuchiIllustrations by Rinee Shah April 21, 2022   The universal symbol for recycling, known as the “chasing arrows” logo, is stamped on so many things. But that doesn’t mean they’re recyclable.   Manufacturers can print the logo on just about any product. That’s because its main purpose isn’t to say whether it’s recyclable, but to identify the type of plastic it’s made from. (For example, if there’s a “3” in the center, it’s PVC, which most curbside recycling programs don’t accept.) The logo is so widely misunderstood that last year California banned its use on things that aren’t recyclable.   There are efforts to improve the system. But first, the central question:   The unhelpful symbol is just one aspect of a recycling system that is far too confusing to be broadly effective. It puts the burden on individuals to decode a secret language — to figure out not only whether a thing is recyclable, but also if their local recycling program actually accepts it.     For reasons like these, only a small proportion of recyclable plastics actually get recycled.            This system largely leans on us consumers to do the right thing. But it’s easy to get tripped up by the details.            Take those numbers, for example, the ones in the center of the symbol. There are seven types (here’s the full list).   Items marked 1 and 2 are widely recyclable in the United States, and about 30 percent ends up being recycled, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Type 5 is also accepted by a growing number of curbside recycling programs. But other numbers — particularly for soft plastics like shopping bags, snack bags or resealable sandwich bags, generally labeled 4 — are not accepted in curbside programs. And category 7 is a catch-all for various plastics, so it’s almost never recycled.   Pete Keller, vice president of recycling and sustainability at Republic Services, one of the largest recycling companies in the United States, said a general rule of thumb was this: Rigid plastic packaging goes in the recycling. Anything that isn’t rigid doesn’t.   "We like to say, if it’s got a cap and a neck, or if it’s a tub with a lid, put it in the recycling bin,” he said. “And make sure that it's empty, clean, and dry.”   But you’re not done yet. Even if you sort everything perfectly, but then put the sorted plastics in an opaque bag to be picked up, you may have just wasted the effort. That’s because using opaque bags (which make it difficult to see what’s inside) can result in entire bags being thrown out instead of recycled.   Overall, only an estimated 9 percent of all plastics ever manufactured has been recycled, according to the United Nations Environment Program. The rest? Nearly 80 percent has ended up in landfills or dumps, or in the natural environment, with the remainder being burned, releasing emissions that contribute to pollution and global warming.   “We don’t recycle enough plastic, plain and simple,” said Patrick Krieger, vice president of sustainability at the Plastics Industry Association. And though recycling rates were edging up globally, particularly for certain types of plastic, “there is so much more we need to do,” he said. “The industry is constantly innovating to increase the recyclability of the products we make and including more recycled content at a record pace.”   It’s undeniable that plastics have made daily life more convenient, affordable and, in some cases, safer. Plastic has even helped in efforts to slow climate change: lightweight plastic auto parts have made vehicles more fuel-efficient, and plastic packaging can require less energy to produce and transport than alternatives like glass or metal.   Still, the world also has a huge plastic waste problem. And the problem is bigger than you.   Even if people do everything right — decipher the numbers in the chasing arrows symbols, then sort their garbage — there’s not always a nearby facility to take it. That’s because recycling is handled at the local level, and every town might have different policies or procedures. And some places might not recycle at all. In recent years, amid Covid and growing difficulties finding buyers for plastic waste, some local governments have halted recycling programs.     Even when there is a facility that technically accepts certain items, that doesn’t mean everything will get recycled.            For instance, the plant might not be able to find buyers, so plastics pile up in bales with nowhere to go.            And of course, the process of sorting can result in all kinds of problems.   Facilities use various technologies to quickly sort through mountains of recycling, including optical scanners that can detect different types of plastic. But these tools aren’t perfect. Scanners can have difficulty detecting flat items or reading darker colors, such as those black to-go containers.   Plastic that can be recycled is shredded, melted and turned into pellets. The pellets typically get used to manufacture products of a lower quality or value, like polyester for carpets — a practice known as “downcycling.”   The rest may end up being sent to landfills, or burned in incinerators or shipped abroad, ostensibly to be recycled there. But in reality, often it is simply dumped.   That happens for many reasons: It can be difficult to recycle plastics other than types 1 and 2. Even if something can technically be recycled, there’s often no market for the material. It’s sometimes cheaper to just make new plastic. And there’s currently not much incentive for companies to use recycled content.   To make things worse, people often “wish-cycle,” a type of aspirational recycling where people optimistically throw things into the bin that don’t belong there. Things like chip bags, bubble wrap and, yes, dirty diapers. The immense effort of weeding out the unrecyclables makes the whole process more inefficient.   No doubt about it: We are bad at recycling, and the recycling ecosystem isn’t great, either. But the worst part of the plastics problem is the scale of it.   The world is producing plastic at an explosive rate.   Since 1960, plastics production has surged almost 100-fold. By one measure, the weight of all plastic ever produced is now greater than all land and marine animals combined. On top of that, more than half of plastic products are designed to be used only once, according to the United Nations. Think hotel shampoo mini-bottles, single-use tooth-flossing picks, all those at-home Covid tests.          And once discarded, plastic hangs around for centuries, breaking into ever smaller particles that spread far and wide and can carry toxic substances. These microplastics have been found in drinking water, in table salt, in rainfall, and, recently, in human blood.   Underpinning the surge has been the abundant global supply of oil and gas, the raw materials for plastics. As the world tries to combat climate change by burning fewer fossil fuels, plastic is set to become an increasingly important business for oil and gas companies.   Producing the plastic itself creates planet-warming greenhouse gases and other pollutants. In 2015, plastics created 4.5 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, one recent study estimated, or more than all the world’s airplanes combined.   Plastic makers have promoted recycling as a way to justify continued production, said Carroll Muffett, who heads the Center for International Environmental Law. “But in reality, only a tiny fraction of those plastics are economically recyclable,” he said. “You can’t recycle your way out of this problem."   The earliest plastics weren’t meant to be disposable. In fact, in the early 1900s, they were hailed as a more sustainable replacement for scarce natural resources, like tortoise shells, ivory, and animal horns, widely used back then to make things like eyeglasses and combs.   Strong, lightweight and flexible, plastic (a word that originally meant “easily shaped or molded”) went on to transform modern life, making many inventions possible: transistor radios, polyester clothing, cell phones, medical advances. In a matter of decades, plastic made all manner of household goods and appliances widely and cheaply available, helping to create the consumer economy.   But by midcentury, the industry began seizing on a strategy that put plastic production into even higher gear: single-use plastics. Manufacturers saw it as a way to boost sales almost infinitely as people threw things away and then bought more.   The future of plastics lies “in the trash can,” Lloyd Stouffer, the editor of Modern Packaging magazine, said at an industry conference in 1956.   That caused a new problem: Too much trash.     Some politicians began proposing things like bans on single-use products. But many of the bills failed under industry pressure.            Instead, plastics makers lobbied governments to take a different approach: Curbside recycling, funded by taxpayers.            Changes like these, in the latter half of the 20th century, benefited corporations in several ways. Consider soft-drink makers. Before plastic, they used glass bottles, which were valuable enough for companies to pay to collect, clean and re-use. A switch to a cheaper plastic material meant drink makers could now keep churning out new bottles instead of collecting used ones.   To cope with the mounting trash, cities and counties set up curbside recycling programs. The burden of collecting and recycling the plastic bottles came to rest with taxpayers.   It was around this time that industry-funded television ads, like the famous 1970s one in which a Native American character sheds a tear amid a littered landscape, helped drive the message home: Individuals bore responsibility for keeping America trash-free and beautiful. In the 1980s, the plastics industry adopted the “chasing arrows” to promote recycling.   Eventually more of this waste ended up being exported to countries like China. But in 2017, China said it would no longer accept the world’s plastic trash. Since then, more plastic has been sent to countries like Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam. Or else it has simply been landfilled or burned. The world’s rivers and oceans, too, are littered with plastic waste.   If recycling alone can’t fix things, what can be done? Many solutions are being tested.   One idea that has been gaining ground in the United States is a type of law known as “extended producer responsibility.”     These laws would mean that, rather than taxpayers footing the recycling bill, producers would be charged a fee, which would pay for recycling programs.            Fees would be based on things like the weight of the packaging, the ease of recycling or whether it contains toxic substances like PFAS.            Regulations like these might also give companies an incentive to redesign their products to be more recyclable. Last year, Maine and Oregon passed producer responsibility laws, two of nearly a dozen states that introduced bills.   These laws are important because “there’s only so much that you can do, as an individual, in an American grocery store” to make choices that would reduce plastic waste, since many products aren’t recyclable, said Judith Enck, a former E.P.A. regional administrator and founder of Beyond Plastics, which advocates for better plastic policies.   California’s decision to restrict the symbol’s use is widely seen as a milestone. It could be a model for other states or the federal government to crack down on misleading recycling claims, supporters say.   Tougher rules could also give companies an incentive to make their products more recyclable. And better awareness on what is, and isn’t, truly recyclable could lead to better choices on the part of consumers.   A growing number of states and cities have banned single-use plastic bags. Others have banned plastic foam products, which can’t be recycled.   Some states are thinking about phasing out certain plastics, requiring the use of recycled material or discouraging use of mixed materials like plastic-coated papers that make recycling tougher.   It’s going to be hard for communities and individuals to change how all this works on their own, said Ana Baptista, an environmental policy professor and associate director of the Tishman Environment and Design Center at The New School.          That said, there are things that individuals can do. Keep recycling category 1 and 2 plastics, as well as paper, cardboard and metals. Depending on where you live, it might also be possible to recycle the ones marked 5.   Consider switching to different products or brands (ones with more recyclable packaging), or making fewer purchases online given that bubble mailers aren’t accepted by most curbside recycling programs.   Buying fewer consumer goods in general, to the extent possible, can reduce the plastics waste stream. Getting involved in local efforts to improve recycling or reduce local plastic use is another option.   “They are small things,” Dr. Baptista said, “but they start to introduce some pushback against a system that is dumping cheap plastic into our society.”  

Access through your institutionVolume 16, Issue 7, September 2012, Pages 5225-5231https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.05.008Get rights and contentView full text

 It was a windy afternoon in the bustling Lagos suburb of Mushin. In one of the popular markets, local artisans are mending the saws, hammers, and sewing machines, creating leather fashion accessories. Everyone was minding his work, as the day strolled by. 
However, one could notice a common culture amid these artisans; they all recourse to the surrounding gutters and roadsides as their waste bins, increasing the city’s already choking pollution problem.  Experts estimate that Lagos generates, at least, 10, 000 tons of plastic waste daily. While many individuals are unaware of its environmental impact, 31-year-old Felabuyi Akunse turned to fashion as a means of rescuing the planet from its ill-fated pollution challenges. 
In this interview with CHINONSO IHEKIRE, the Environmental Scientist and fashion entrepreneur talks about crafting footwear from recycled plastic waste, child-focused philanthropy, and the prospects of sustainable fashion in Nigeria. 
How did you come about Salubata?
THE brand Salubata wasn’t really planned. In 2015, I went to Eko Market to purchase a sandal and I went to a friend’s house; his uncle liked the shoes and asked if I was the one producing them. My friend signaled to me to say yes and I did. So, his uncle purchased three of them from me.  Over time, we realised that a lot of people kept complaining about the quality of the products. We realised that we had shoes that were made with a lot of inferior materials. So, it was from there we started thinking of making our own leather products. So, that is how we started. We started with three people; we are now two. Our office is located in Maryland, Victoria Island, Lagos. 
What inspired the idea of using plastic waste to create footwear?
Over the time, I had personally worked as an environmental scientist; I had been designing shoes too, since 2015. Then, we had been having issues, while I was working as an environmental scientist, with plastic pollution. My boss complained about flooding near his home. Then, I started thinking about the volume of plastic waste available. So, then I suggested to him about making water bottles that can be squeezed just like paper; it was just a random thought. 
With a background in Environmental Science from the University of Lagos – I studied environmental pollution and environmental toxicology – I had a distinction in my Masters. We were still making shoes from leather then. In a metropolitan city like Lagos, there are over 1,200tons of plastic waste generated per day. We normally take our shoes to weigh them before they are dispatched. So, we realised that the average weight of a shoe is 0.5 kilogramme. So, it was more expensive to dispatch; that was when the dots started connecting.  The problem in Nigeria is that over 90.5 per cent of plastic wastes have never been recycled. We have a lot of recycling companies around, but the volume of plastic waste is still very rife. Asides from the fact that we even make shoes from plastic waste, we realised the fact that even Adidas, Nike, in the United States even make shoes from plastic waste. So, we started making modular shoes from plastic waste. 
Modular in the sense that these shoes can be detached and replaced. So, instead of buying a shoe or more than two shoes, you would only be buying a sole and a number of shoe bodies you want. We trade at Salubataofficial.com and you would see them there. We want to really address the mass market. We have a patent in Nigeria and in the United States on this invention. We also have two design rights and two trademarks; that’s how we started. 
How exactly does this work?
So, it starts from the collection. From the collection, there are machines that shred these plastics; the plastics themselves are being heated and drawn into yarns. These yarns are being drawn into fibers and we make any design from them.  What is your workforce like?
Well, I don’t work alone. I notice that one of the primary killers of Nigerian businesses is that we run a one-man business; I currently work with my co-founders. I also have a quality assurance manager and a project manager. The current advantage over other businesses is that we have a professional fashion photographer in our business; it is really cool. We also have some partners, like the United Kingdom Department for International Trade. A few of them are also coming up, like Co-creation hub. I must also remember the artisans we work with. We currently have about 7 of them. So, in total, we are about 11 in the company. 
What are the main issues you face with running your brand in Nigeria?
One of the reasons we started making shoes from plastic waste was because we realised that some years ago, Gucci was sold to another brand and it was sold for about 1 billion dollars plus. We compared it to Facebook and the valuation of Facebook is over 100 billion dollars. So, we started thinking of how to act similarly to Facebook. 
We realised that the high-end brands have a lot of admirers, but few buyers. Asides from that, we started thinking; Nigeria produces a lot of leather but a lot of people cannot afford the leather. We started thinking of how we could target the mass market; we want to have franchises. It would help us scale really faster.  The main issue in running a business here is people not being able to afford what we are producing. The disposable income of Nigerians is extremely low. One of the other problems is that we do not have a lot of people with deep insight into businesses. They just want to save money instantly. We have more people interested in our brand from outside the country, than Nigerians themselves; it is really pathetic. 
On a national scale, what is your vision of sustainable footwear?
Primarily, we started out as seeing what we want to do as a global business; it is not limited to a location, in Africa or any continent. We have read a lot about the likes of Nike and Adidas. The whole concept of Made-in-Nigeria is an archaic concept; a lot of people have gone beyond those clichés. The scope of made in a particular country is very backward. For us, it is not really a vision; we have a global vision. We want to become one of the 100 most sustainable brands by 2024. We know that there is a lot that still needs to be done pertaining to this kind of marketing. COVID-19 has exposed that we only care about feeding and sheer. 
How do you feel about the level of international exposure you are gaining?
So, we believe in branding itself. The way you start matters a lot, but it doesn’t mean you should continue the way you started, even if you do not start well. For us, it is really not just starting; we are really educated. We are a set of very smart people in the team; it has helped us to think bigger. For us, it has really been about achieving the dream. So, it is really about what you want; it is happening.  What are your visions for up-scaling this initiative?
So, our plan is that in a year, we want to produce about 3 to 3.2 million shoes. We have decided to contribute 5 per cent of the profit from every shoe to the costs of feeding children and empowering women in underprivileged communities. We understand that the downhill effects of these pollutants affect these people the most. So, asides from footwear, we want to be able to make anything wearable from these sustainable materials. For us, it is more of the insights and also the background. 
Anything you would like to add?
Lastly, I would like to add that it is not really about those that started 20 or 30 years ago. There can be a new starter and gain a lot of traction in a very short time; you need to study global trends a lot. That would really help you to position your business. A lot of Nigerian businesses imitate themselves. So, it is really about having a global scope; we don’t play small. If you start really big, big things would happen to you.  

Access through your institutionVolume 33, Issue 4, April 2013, Pages 988-1003https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.12.023Get rights and content► Five drivers led developed countries to current solid waste management paradigm. ► Many unique factors challenge developing country solid waste management. ► Limited transferability of developed country approaches to developing countries. ► High uncertainties and decision stakes call for post-normal approaches. ► Systems thinking needed for multi-scale, self-organizing eco-social waste systems.Integrated solid waste managementView full text

large_blob

medium_blob

small_blob

thumbnail_blob

blob

OUR MISSION IS TO ACCELERATE THE PRACTICAL AND SCALABLE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY

At Circle Economy, we believe in a visionary future for our planet — one in which we do not have to compromise in order to achieve economic, social, and environmental prosperity. As an impact organisation, we connect and empower a global community to create the conditions for systemic transformation. With nature as our mentor, we work alongside businesses, cities and governments to identify opportunities to make the transition to the circular economy, and provide a powerful combination of practical and scalable solutions to turn these opportunities into reality.
‍
Our mission is to empower a global community of businesses, cities and governments to accelerate the transition to the circular economy through practical and scalable insights and solutions that address humanity’s greatest challenges.

thumbnail_circle-economy.jpg

circle-economy.jpg

Circle Economy

SALUBATA

Scarcity. Sparseness.. Shortages... Research has indicated that the world, if left as it is, could experience some devastating changes from climate change and this affects all. Human contribution to the release of greenhouse gases has further worsened the situation and one of the key ways to curb this is through considering the 9Rs the circular economy, where efforts are made to lower our harmful activities through more improved uses of products and materials. With less waste, pollution can be curbed as we innovatively device more value-adding multiple uses of the limited materials and products in the environment.

Salubata recycles plastic waste into low-cost shoes. In order to create a closed loop, used shoes are converted into other valuable products. Salubata invented and patented a modular shoe design. With this design, customers can pay less to have different shoe uppers and one sole to complement it. 5% of every shoe purchased is committed to feeding starving children and to empowering women in underserved communities