circular economy expert

Built to Break: Making a Circular Economy Calls for Repair Economics by Nina Gbor

Photo by Bulat369

When your toaster breaks, you probably go out to buy a new one. It’s easier, cheaper, and usually the only option. Replacing your toaster contributes 18 kilograms of CO2 to the atmosphere. 

When your jeans develop a hole, you go and buy a new pair. You probably are not patching them yourself. According to a lifecycle assessment by the United Nations Environmental Programme, this single pair of denim contributes 33.4 kilograms of carbon equivalent to the atmosphere. Making this new pair of jeans uses 3,718 litres of water

Looking beyond toasters, Australia generated 511,000 tonnes of e-waste in 2019, of which the majority is not recovered. Including all waste types, Australia generated an estimated 75.6 million tonnes (Mt) of waste in the 2022-2023 fiscal year.. In 2018, the United States sent 37,410,000 tonnes of durable goods, products with a lifetime of three years or more, to the landfill. 

These numbers are not to shame the urge to remain stylish or guilt for wanting toasted bread, but to show how things are and raise the question of how things could be. Instead of tossing and replacing these toasters and jeans, a circular economy with a focus on repair and reuse offers us the opportunity to extend the lifecycle of our items.  

The habit of throwing away and replacing our stuff represents our present linear economy. This capitalist model rewards companies building items designed to fail, leading to companies favoring profit over people, planet, and progress. This is a concept called planned obsolescence. These products with a designed and predetermined lifespan include electronic devices, cellphones, appliances, toys, books, furniture, clothing, and nearly every manufactured product. No matter how well you take care of an item, it is built with a limited lifespan and designed to fail. 

Shorter buy-again windows mean companies are selling the same product more frequently to repeat customers, increasing yearly profits. When products are cheaper to replace than they are to repair, it is a no-brainer why people choose to simply buy the product again. 

Apple is an example of a company that sees record sales as a result of its planned obsolescence in its iPad, iPhone, and Mac products. As highlighted in multiple lawsuits and federal hearings in the United States, Apple has acknowledged that it builds devices with deteriorating battery lives, meaning consumers will have to either struggle with their old model or pay to upgrade after just a few years. 

Not limited to Apple or even cellphones, the furniture giant Ikea has committed to reforming its entire value chain following a long history of environmental and quality complaints around products that uphold the definition of planned obsolescence. This intentional design failure is embedded in nearly all products, and it is catastrophic for the Earth.

Source: Amadori, F. B., Felta, L., Fernandez, A. R., Simeoni, F., & Vehanen, T. (2020, September 28). Planned Obsolescence and the Lifespan of Electronics. Infragraphy. https://blogs.aalto.fi/mediainfrastructures/2020/09/28/planned-obsolescence-and-the-lifespan-of-electronics/

The solution to this model is to bend the line into a circle, creating a circular economy. The Ellen MacArthur Foundation defines the circular economy as a system in which materials never become waste, and there is a greater emphasis placed on regenerating nature. In this circular system, products and materials are not sent to landfill, and instead remain in circulation through processes like maintenance, reuse, refurbishment, remanufacture, recycling, and composting

The circular economy’s core pillars are circular design, reuse of materials, and regeneration. Focusing on circular design means that products are built for repair, reuse, repurposing, and remanufacturing. Repair is the antidote to the waste crisis created by planned obsolescence. In challenging companies’ overproduction practices, we create better products, greatly reducing new manufacturing. In tandem, repair becomes cheaper, easier, and more accessible

Source: van Ewijk, S., & Stegemann, J. (2023). THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY. In An Introduction to Waste Management and Circular Economy (pp. 306–348). UCL Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.4350575.17

Repair is one of the most crucial aspects of the circular economy that receives the least amount of utilisation. A repair economy helps to bend the line by reducing new manufacturing and extending the lifespan of products. There is power in repurposing and repairing an item, and it also makes a consumer’s connection to their stuff more personal, further enhancing the desire to repair rather than replace. 

A focus on repair also means slower depletion of natural resources, less biodiversity loss, smaller quantities of pollution, and even the potential for natural areas to regenerate. When a landfill is filled, it contaminates nearby soil and water, leaches into the local environment, disrupts avian migration patterns, poses a significant threat to both physical and environmental health when toxic materials are not properly disposed of, and has a laundry list of other negative impacts. Slowing the rate of waste sent to landfills means fewer raw materials are taken from our natural world, and the negative impacts of landfills are reduced. 

The environmental benefits of repair quickly stack. If one-fifteenth of American households were to extend the expected 15-year lifespan of their refrigerators by only one year with stronger repair infrastructure, some 2.95 million tonnes of CO2 would be spared from entering the atmosphere. This is the amount of emissions released by the entire New York City urban area, 790 square km and over eight million people, in just about 6 days. The environmental cost to manufacture one refrigeration unit is around 350 kg of CO2. Reducing emissions is not controlled by an on or off switch, but we create wins by tackling small victories at once. 

The biggest struggle of the repair movement is cost and convenience. Currently, LG Electronics’ Flat-Rate Repair Program for a refrigerator starts at USD 399, while a new 420L bottom freezer and fridge costs USD 891. When a product needs repair, consumers begin to see the end of its life. With the repair cost being just under half the cost of a new refrigerator unit, it often makes replacing more appealing or logical than repairing the unit. Additionally, it is simply easier and more convenient to replace a product than to find a qualified and available repairperson. 

Repair has monumental potential, but policy failure challenges its success. In many places, a personal or professional attempt at repair often voids a product's warranty, if it has one. In response to corporate hostility against repairs, the right to repair movement has emerged across the world, aiming to pass legislation that protects consumers as they seek out repairs and enforces cooperation from firms in making these repairs successful. 

Photo by KC Shum

Many nations, like the United States, do not have a nationwide right to repair law. The United Kingdom and Australia have selective right-to-repair legislation, largely limited to motor vehicles, failing to include household electronics or clothing. Australia’s restrictive right to repair legislation is limited to the automotive industry and requires vehicle service and repair information to be available for purchase at a fair market price. Although not progressive enough, if it can be done for automobiles, the same legislation can be used as a model in other repairable industries. 

In 2024, the European Union finally passed a largely encompassing Right to Repair legislation, providing increased protection and resources for consumers to opt to repair instead of being forced to replace. The legislation requires manufacturers to provide repair information, supply spare parts at reasonable cost, and repair products, even if a company’s warranty has lapsed for the product.

France was the first country to pass Extended Producer Responsibility legislation applicable to clothes and textiles. This legislation requires companies subject to the law to finance the management and prevention of the end-of-life of products that they put on the market. Made possible through an “eco-tax,” France’s partner in EPR uses this tax for collection, sorting, treatment management, eco-modulations, a repair fund, and a reuse fund. This tax and legislation limit the landfill impact of textiles and clothing. This repair fund sets aside €154 million between 2023 and 2028, allowing consumers who visit a participating repair shop to claim back between €6 and €25 towards the cost of their repairs. France’s progressive repair legislation sets the standard for other national repair laws and demonstrates that advocacy for repair legislation works.

With intensifying climate regulations coupled with right-to-repair movements, companies must take accountability for their role in creating waste while finding ways of making profits as they transition to circular business. By designing quality products with repair in mind, businesses can offer services for their products and diversify revenue streams. Additionally, companies can begin to design platforms and spaces where consumers can resell their products. 

In 2012, Patagonia began solving this repair puzzle through its Worn Wear program, and also powers iFixit to educate consumers on at-home repairs and product care. A commitment to repair and high-quality products has given Patagonia a committed consumer base who are willing to pay more for this service and their products.  

Photo by Luba Glazunova

Nudie Jeans is another company that wins consumers with a lifetime guarantee of free repairs. The denim company understands its products will not last forever, regardless of how well its jeans are made. They meet consumers' needs and offer free repairs, so the life of the garment is extended by years. 

It will take some time to create a system that’s more circular. It is challenging to know where to begin with such an enormous issue; however, we can start by supporting local craftspeople. Find a local seamstress to patch your jeans, discover a local repairsperson to take a crack at your toaster. Save the atmosphere from the carbon emissions and minimise waste to landfill by repairing products when possible instead of replacing them. 

Make circular actions a regular part of your lifestyle. Swap or trade items with your friends. When possible, purchase the variety of products you use from second-hand stores. Visit repair cafes, repair shops, join or host mending circles, and host and attend swaps. These choices are not just environmental: they are community and financial investments. Each of these solutions bring us a little closer to a more circular society. 

To more fully bend the linear economy into a circle, we need systems change via policy and legislation. This means, for example, campaigning for laws that eliminate planned obsolescence, right-to-repair policies, product repair schemes and rebates. Similar legislation can be created for other circular solutions. We can bring this system into effect by contacting our local and federal representatives to push these issues forward and request change. Share information about these issues to your groups, communities and neighbourhoods while encouraging advocacy actions to support systems change. This way, we will have as many people as possible coming together to form a circle. 


Article by Tyler Branigan. Tyler has a passion for sustainable solutions and circular economics.

The EU’s Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) law that may force the fashion industry to become more sustainable by Nina Gbor

EU fashion EPR (Extended Producer Responsibility) Australia fashion legislation fashion law 1

Image credit: Fernand De Canne

The European Union has struck textile companies with intensive laws dedicated to reducing the impact of fast fashion on the planet. The union has been at the forefront of rooting out the exploitative business practices of fast fashion giants such as Shein, H&M, and Inditex Group (which includes companies like Berksha, Zara, and Massimo Dutti). The EU is implementing laws that will reduce textile waste and promote recycling of fashion items. 

According to The Fashion Law, the EU has introduced an “Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)” mandate on 9 September 2025 for textile producers, which ensures that fast fashion companies shoulder the responsibility of “collecting, sorting, and recycling the clothing and household textiles” instead of individual consumers. The EPR is an addition to the existing Waste Framework Directive which calls for the development of sustainable waste management practices. Fortunately, these rules are also applicable to traditional European labels, promoting sustainability in the textile industry regardless of their business model. The EU is adamant about each member state adopting the necessary technology and infrastructure and setting protracted policy goals for the future. 

In the Waste Framework Directive, the EU highlights the complex composition of municipal waste which makes efficient sorting and recycling difficult for existing waste management infrastructures. The active participation of citizens is also a major factor in waste management to ensure each category of waste is discarded and recycled correctly. The Waste Framework Directive also stated that in order to combat the level of municipal waste in the world, a sophisticated system and public awareness is necessary. However, EPR rightfully places the responsibility of recycling on one of the world’s largest polluters themselves, forcing these companies to comply with sustainable business practices moving forward. 

If fast fashion companies continue to operate within the non-stop, trend-focused business model, the fashion industry is projected to generate 26% of the world’s carbon emissions by 2050. The only beneficiaries of this horrible statistic are the companies that earn billions of dollars from exploiting human labor and destroying the planet. This huge achievement toward legislative change in fashion serves as a framework for the rest of the world to reject unnecessary textile waste. However, the issue has not been abolished completely. Unless the rest of the world creates similar programs for its fashion markets, fast fashion giants will continue to switch their marketing practices and entice you to buy that new shirt for your “first” events forever. 

Australia is a leading consumer of fast fashion, ahead of many EU nations and the US. In a 2024 research paper by Nina Gbor and Olivia Chollet from the Australia Institute emphasized that the sheer quantity of Australian textile waste is 200,000 tonnes, equivalent to a weight of four Sydney Harbor Bridges. The Australian government needs to establish concrete laws similar to the EU to curb its textile waste crisis. Nina Gbor, founder of Eco Styles, has launched a petition to revive the Australian textile industry with a focus on circular economy practices. Here is a brief summary of some of the policies this petition is advocating for: 

  •  Reviving the Australian textile industry, which can help create a $38 billion industry for onshore production jobs for women 

  • Significant industry reform under the Labor Government’s Progressive productivity agenda and its commitment to the net-zero agenda by 2050 as well as strengthen the economic resilience of the country

  • Taxing ultra fast-fashion brands and investing the returns into the Australian fashion industry 

  • Phasing out virgin plastics and synthetic materials as well as banning toxic chemicals in line with the Zero Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals foundation

  • Public awareness about the health and environmental complications of buying fast fashion items

  • Pushing for ethical business and fair trade practices under the Modern Slavery Act of 2018 to ensure there are no human rights violations within the industry. 

Sign the petition to create impactful change in legislation and consumer behavior in Australia. Self-expression through fashion should not have such a heavy cost. When you buy your next piece of clothing, think about the social and environmental impact of the item you are purchasing. Prioritize brands practice sustainability, quality, and fair trade. Opt for methods such as thrifting, mending, repairing, and swapping to elongate the lifecycle of clothing items and prevent their early demise into landfills already brimming to their maximum capacity. 


Article by Samya Dawadi for Eco Styles. Samya’s focus is on environmental and sustainability consulting in business and art. 


Italy fines Shein €1 million for greenwashing by Nina Gbor

Ultra-fast fashion conglomerate Shein, is being fined for the second time in two months. Italy’s antitrust agency, AGCM recently issued a €1M fine (approximately $1.7 million AUD / $1.15M USD) for greenwashing practices i.e. “misleading customers about the environmental impact of its products.”

Similarly, the first fine for Shein came from France in July this year through the country’s antitrust agency responsible for consumer protection and competition. They hit Shein with the first greenwashing fine to the tune of €40 million (approx. $72 million AUD) for fake discounts and misleading environmental claims.

The brand allegedly used “vague, generic, and/or overly emphatic,” claims that were considered “misleading or omissive” in connection to its “evoluSHEIN by design” collection. It promoted sustainable practices, with claims like using “fabrics left over by other fashion brands that were destined for landfill or incineration.”

The company’s touts of a circular system design and product recyclability "were found to be false or at the very least confusing", and the green credentials of its 'evoluSHEIN by design' collection were overstated, the regulator said.

Italy has fined the Chinese fast fashion online retailer Shien over $1.7 million for greenwashing. Nina Gbor from the Australia Institute says the e-commerce giant was giving “false and misleading” information to customers that they were doing something good for the environment.

The agency said the recyclability claims “were found to be either false or at least confusing,” warning consumers might think Shein products are fully recyclable and made only from sustainable materials which “does not reflect reality.” It’s also "a fact that, considering the fibres used and currently existing recycling systems, is untrue".

Italy’s AGCM also accused the brand of using a “misleading communication strategy” about its environmental impact, like Shein’s commitments to cut greenhouse emissions by 25% by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050, noting that Shein's emissions increased in 2023 and 2024.

Shein responded by saying they have “strengthened internal review processes” and cleaned up its website to make sure all environmental claims are now “clear, verifiable, and compliant with regulations.”

Shein’s Impact

Shein made $32.5 billion sales in 2023. Their sales were forecasted to reach $50 billion in 2024. The average price of an item from Shein is between $10 - $20. It ships ultra-cheap clothing from thousands of suppliers to tens of millions of customer mailboxes in around 150 countries. 

These are factors that make Shein one of the biggest polluters of fast fashion. It has about 600,000 items for sale on average on its website and adds around 10,000 items each day. The company was shipping about one million products a day as of last year. In 2024, the company made over one billion dollars in revenue in Australia.  

There were concerns were from Shein’s third annual sustainability report published in 2023 which showed the company nearly doubled its carbon dioxide emissions between 2022 and 2023. Shein emitted 16.7 million total metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2023 which falls far below its Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) validated reduction targets to reduce absolute Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions by 42% by 2030.

Can fining fast fashion companies be effective in Australia and other countries?

There’s nothing that corporations and most businesses hate more than losing profits in any way. So, the answer to whether fining greenwashing can work in my opinion is yes. Provided the fines are substantial amounts and not just a slap on the wrist. I think each time a company fails to comply with environmental regulations they should be fined. And the fines can potentially increase each time the offence is committed again. And if the fines are proving ineffective in general, it might be a sign that the amounts are too small to have an impact, therefore they should be increased.  

Isn’t it the consumers’ responsibility not to purchase fast fashion?

Every individual is responsible for their actions, including their own consumption and overconsumption habits. However, I believe the onus lies more on the brands/corporations to do the right thing by being honest and transparent with their claims. Clothing companies with access to multi-million- or billion-dollar funds have the resources and power to run operations and access materials that are genuinely better for the environment while still being profitable in many cases. Whereas, some consumers are experiencing cost-of-living crises, are time-poor because of life commitments and experience other issues that make it challenging for them to patronise non-fast fashion items.

 What can consumers people do instead of fast fashion?

Instead of buying fast fashion, consumers can:

  • purchase secondhand items

  • host or attend clothes swaps

  • rent / hire and borrow clothing

  • repair, mend or repurpose existing garments

  • use free clothing services such as Thread Together who get left over clothes from retail brands and give to people who need them.

Moreover, some fast fashion items are have been found to have toxic chemicals from the materials used and dyes. Secondhand clothes might have less toxic chemicals than brand new ones. In addition to this, about 85% of clothes end up in landfill or incinerated each year. Reusing garments diverts clothes from landfill and it’s healthier for the environment in several ways.

*Article by Nina Gbor

Policies and initiatives to help save the Australian fashion industry for future generations by Nina Gbor

Nina Gbor Joanna Cheng Eco Styles upcycling 1

We recently had Joanna visit our office. Joanna received the Young Creator of the Year Award for demonstrating strong creativity and leadership through her self-initiated school club, Passion for Fashion Fridays. She mentors younger students in upcycling textiles into functional and stylish art pieces. Her commitment to sustainability and community engagement underpins her long-term goal of opening a business that teaches others to repurpose clothing into meaningful, eco-friendly creations.

Joanna brought an terrific upcycled art piece she made with fishes made from a mix of discarded textiles. It’s inspiring to see Joanna’s hard work, talent and her dreams for the future. She could potentially make a real impact in textiles circularity. She is currently deciding which tertiary institution to further develop her skills in hope of a successful career in her future.

I had to caution her about the lack of sufficient jobs in Australian textiles industry. Every week I mentor a couple of people who is either a young person or adult wanting to have a career in the sustainable fashion space. Fashion is one of the top career choices for teenagers and young people in general. Sadly, the lack of sufficient and varied career opportunities is a real bug bear.

Many Australian clothing brands have had to close their doors in the last few years. I’m still in the process of ascertaining a more precise number but it’s a lot. Ultra-fast fashion and conventional fast fashion have played a big role in some of this but they’re not the only reason. We need This is one of the reasons I’ve been strongly advocating for reform in the industry. It’s the protection of Australian textiles businesses and also incubating the talent and dreams of young people.

The industry is currently worth $28 billion to the national economy and can potentially escalate to $38 billion dollars within a decade with the right reform and support from the federal government. This progress would mean not only more jobs but a broader array in the nature of jobs in the industry to accommodate young people like Joanna and others.

With over 300,000 tonnes of textiles discarded each year, we can invest in scaling reuse, repairs, mending, upcycling, repurposing, renting and recycling. As one of the wealthiest countries in the world, an investment into research and development towards recycling textiles could see all existing and innovations and scaling of all textile recycling capabilities in Australia. This would be a boost to the economy, even more jobs and keeping all the materials in the circularity loop which is important for the environment. Ultimately this will be a triple win for us.

Here are some of the existing government programs that can boost the textiles industry:

  • The $900 million investment of the Albanese Labor Government into the new National Productivity Fund is part of an initial step towards “delivering broader ‘right to repair’ reforms – driving down repair costs, increasing business opportunities and reducing wastage by removing barriers to competition for repairs….”

  • With Australia being one of the biggest consumers of clothing in the world per capita and one of the most wasteful, it’s fortunate that we also have the Recycling Modernisation Fund (RMF). This is a $200 million national initiative for the expansion of Australia’s capacity to sort, process and remanufacture glass, plastic, tyres, paper and cardboard. Textiles can be added to the RMF. The Albanese government is looking towards new and upgraded recycling infrastructure through the RMF.

  • Other government programs that can support a textiles industry include the Future Made in Australia, which has $22.7 billion private sector investment over a 10-year period to help Australia build a stronger and more resilient economy.

  • There’s also an Advanced Manufacturing program which is a $1.6 billion accelerator fund for to enable development of more complex domestic manufacturing industries using cutting-edge technologies and innovative processes to improve existing manufacturing operations and create new products. This could potentially suit 3-D printing initiatives, blockchain, textile software operations, chemical textile recycling and other areas.

  • A new program designed to cater to the development of an Australian textiles industry with necessary investments and nuanced support can also be created by the government. However, we need to advocate for it, loudly and persistently. Think of all the young people like Joanna whose dreams depend on it.

Article by Nina Gbor

The Halloween waste economy; creating a more circular and sustainable Halloween by Nina Gbor

Halloween waste sustainable Halloween Nina Gbor 1

Image credit: Nikola Johnny Mirkovic

Halloween is gradually becoming synonymous with waste with its rituals of single-use costumes, party kits and other paraphernalia. Overconsumption and excessive waste levels can be high at any given time of the year; however, holidays like Halloween spike the charts of environmental degradation. Australia, the US, and the UK are big-time celebrating Halloween with the usual accoutrements of costumes, food, decorations, and candy/sweets.

In a Halloween waste article last year, we wrote more in depth about the economic and environmental categories of the holiday celebrations. Here's an update on Halloween spending in these countries for 2024:

Australia is set to spend A$450 million (approximately USD 296 million or £228 million). 21% of Australians are celebrating Halloween, and each celebrant will spend an average of A$93 ($61 USD or £47), according to the Australian Retail Association and Roy Morgan.

The US is set to spend USD 11.6 billion (approximately A$17.6 billion or £8.9 billion). 72% of Americans are celebrating with an average $104 USD spent per person (A$158 or £80), based on data from the National Retail Federation.

The UK is set to spend £776 million (approximately A$1.5 billion or $1 billion USD). 58% of Brits are celebrating to an average of £25 per person (A$50 or $39 USD) according to Finder.

Australia

The Halloween categories Australians will have spent on this year, according to Roy Morgan and the Australian Retail Association, include:

•         Trick or treating - 45%

•         Treats for trick-or-treaters – 38%

•         Halloween costumes – 37%

•         Home decorations - 32%

•         Attending or hosting – 18%

The USA

The 2024 Halloween spending in the US from the National Retail Federation are:

  • Costumes - $3.8B (USD)

  • Decorations - $3.8B

  • Candy - $3.5B

  • Greeting cards - $0.5B.

The UK

Halloween spending in the UK quadrupled in the last ten years since 2013 to about £1 billion. According to Mirror UK, the biggest Halloween purchases in 2024 were:

•         Plastic-wrapped sweets – 85%

•         Decorations – 74%

•         Costumes – 70%.

Halloween’s toll on the environment

While these figures may be gold for some aspects of the economy on the surface and also the retail sector, they are a tragedy for the environment. These high surges in holiday product sales result in enormous plastic, paper, food and other material waste. For instance, 46 million products, such as decorations and costumes, are thrown out each year in the UK. But there is hope. By choosing sustainable alternatives, we can significantly reduce this waste.

Costumes and physical health

83% of Halloween costumes are made with non-recyclable, oil-based plastics, so they will likely end up in landfill. They are often made with the cheapest and poor-quality polyester, nylon and acrylic materials. They are designed through a planned obsolescence strategy with a single-use intention. These store-bought costumes usually release microplastics into the air and shed microplastics if washed. Another disconcerting fact is that more than 63% of plastic Halloween costumes can take hundreds of years to decompose. And only 1% of these costumes and the materials they comprise are recycled. With the US spending $3.8 billion USD on costumes and 37% of Australia's Halloween spending going to costumes, plus 70% of the UK's Halloween purchasing also going to costumes, the costume waste from these countries alone will be outrageous.

According to a 2024 textiles waste report by The Australia Institute, Australia is the biggest consumer of clothing in the world per capita. Australia also happens to be one of the world's biggest consumers of single-use plastics per capita, according to a plastic waste makers index by the Minderoo Foundation. However, these statistics also present an opportunity for change. By rethinking our approach to Halloween, we can significantly impact Australia's environmental footprint.

Toxic chemicals from the materials used in Halloween costumes are a terrifying fact about the holiday.  Harmful chemicals such as PFAS, phthalates, BPA, lead and cadmium are found on products made by many costume and fast fashion suppliers. The accumulation of these chemicals in the body can lead to heart, liver and kidney problems, infertility, congenital disabilities, migraines, skin irritations, endocrine disruption and other ailments. Scientists found twenty times the amount of lead that's considered safe in a toddler jacket made by the ultra-fast fashion brand Shein. Lead is known to affect the brain and nervous system as well as create intellectual inabilities, behavioural disorders and other developmental problems in children. Children's clothing with Disney characters had to be recalled 2022 by a company called the Bentex Group for containing high amounts of lead.

Food

According to Hubbub, in 2023, 15.8 million pumpkins were set to go to waste during Halloween in the UK, which is the equivalent of 95 million meals ending up in the bin.  

In Australia, 7.6 million tonnes of food are wasted in a year. Holiday rituals are typically highly wasteful, and Halloween waste could potentially contribute to food waste as an increasing number of Australians are celebrating the holiday (currently, 21%).

It’s been reported that almost 2 billion pounds of pumpkins are produced in the US each year, with more than 1.3 billion pounds of pumpkins thrown away based on information from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The US will also spend USD $3.5 billion on candy and sweets this year. Some of it might go to waste but it will lead to increased plastics pollution because many candy wrappers are made of plastic.

Plastic

In addition to costumes, tremendous plastic waste accompanies Halloween celebrations, such as popular trick-or-treat buckets with the jack-o-lantern image used by many children and the barrage of ‘landfill fillers’ single-use, disposable party cutlery, plates, and cups.

Creating a more circular and sustainable Halloween

However, there are ways to enjoy the holiday without polluting the planet or making it another annual waste disaster.

1. Adopt a circularity mindset

First and foremost, with all holiday celebrations, adopt a mindset that EVERYTHING you purchase or use for holiday celebrations must be something you can and will use again. And at worst, be recyclable.

2. Halloween costume swap

Instead of buying brand new costumes yearly, people can host costume clothes swaps in their schools, homes, neighbourhoods and social groups. This reduces the flow of costumes to landfill and high levels of toxic chemicals from brand-new costumes. Swapping can also include costumes from activities such as book week.

3. Decorate a reusable bag or create a reusable Halloween bag

The world uses around 5 trillion plastic bags a year. Australia alone uses 6.9 billion plastic bags a year, of which 3.6 billion are plastic shopping bags, while Americans use an average of 365 plastic bags per person per year.

Halloween is an opportunity to get into the habit of reusable bags by painting a reusable bag in your favourite holiday look and colours. Alternatively, you can repurpose a pillowcase or tie together an old t-shirt.

4. DIY Costumes

Search online for easy, fun Halloween costumes you can make with friends, alone or with children. Costume-making can be an exciting social activity that people enjoy. Use platforms like TikTok, YouTube, Instagram and Facebook for ideas and inspiration. There can be a level of pride and confidence in children making their own costumes.

5. Shop secondhand

Diverting reusable stuff from landfill is a purposeful act. Before you hit the conventional online and in-person retail spots for holiday stuff, check out the secondhand stores first. You might even have local online neighbourhood groups such as Buy, Sell, and Swap groups on Facebook or other preloved platforms such as Craigslist, Gumtree, Marketplace, etc.

6. Compost, preserve or store food

Whether it’s leftover party food, candy, sweets or pumpkin flesh from your carved jack-o-lantern, you can freeze, refrigerate, compost, or even donate leftover food to charity to prevent it from becoming waste.

7. Hire, borrow or rent disposable party gear and utensils

Search for party kit hire places in your local area or online to prevent buying new, disposable stuff. Considering the items will only be used for a single holiday celebration, it’s possibly not worth buying brand new.  

Article by Nina Gbor