Plasticity Conference Showcases a Green Future for Plastics at Rio+20

first_imgAddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to FacebookFacebookFacebookShare to TwitterTwitterTwitterShare to EmailEmailEmailShare to RedditRedditRedditShare to MoreAddThisMoreThis week, 50,000 leaders in government, business and the environment gather for the Rio+20 Earth Summit UN conference. What is new this year is a one-day creative break-out session focused entirely on the future of plastics — how to use bio-waste instead of oil to make them, and how to get more of it recycled.Called, Plasticity Rio ’12, the forum will showcase pioneering efforts related to plastic, including new initiatives in design, packaging, recovery, and reuse. Heavyweights from both the business and non-profit sectors organized the forum, including the Ocean Recovery Alliance, the United Nations Environment Program, Google, the Clinton Foundation, and Business for the Environment (B4E).“With the world’s plastic production growing at over 8 percent per year the world’s waste management, and recycling infrastructure must keep up,” explains Doug Woodring, founder of the Ocean Recovery Alliance. “We believe that it’s vital to reassess where plastics come from, and where plastics go when we’re done with the them, and that’s why Plasticity Rio ’12 is a critical event coming at an important time.” Plasticity launched a contest looking for the best new ideas for capturing PET plastics for re-use, and what to do with them once they are collected. Prizes for the top innovations will be awarded tomorrow during the all-day event.Innovative companies in the bioplastics arena will also take the stage to showcase their progress. For instance, NatureWorks, which is owned by Cargill, a huge US private conglomerate and the largest chemical company in Thailand, will share its vision of the future from its ten years of experience manufacturing petroleum-free products like bottles, packaging, gift cards and iPhone cases, replacing oil in the process with a biopolymer made from plants called Ingeo. In the future, Ingeo will be made from cellulosic raw materials, agricultural wastes and non-food plants, enlarging its positive footprint on the environment.Learn more at www.plasticityforum.com.Related GNN story: Plastic Bio Bottle is Composted into Plant FoodAddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to FacebookFacebookFacebookShare to TwitterTwitterTwitterShare to EmailEmailEmailShare to RedditRedditRedditShare to MoreAddThisMorelast_img read more

Bilfinger to Deliver New Systems for Emden Gas Terminal in Germany

first_imgBilfinger has received an order from Linde for the manufacture and installation of system modules and piping technology for the new natural gas terminal in Emden. The order is valued at about €30 million. The natural gas terminal in Emden is a key distribution station for gas that is imported from the Norwegian energy company Gassco to Germany. A quarter of the natural gas consumed in Germany will be handled by the plant.The Group company Bilfinger VAM Anlagetechnik will pre-fabricate and subsequently install around 150 plant modules as well as piping components and steel parts on the grounds of the natural gas terminal. Some of the plant components weigh up to 100 tons. In addition, Bilfinger VAM will also deliver corrosion protection and insulation. Work is scheduled for completion in mid 2015.[mappress]Press Release, April 16, 2014; Image: Gasscolast_img read more

Human rights

first_imgLiberty – Detention – Sentence of imprisonment for public protection Following the dismissal of their appeals before the House of Lords (see[2009] 4 All ER 255), three linked cases, in which the offenders had been sentenced to indeterminate sentences of imprisonment for public protection (IPP) under section 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 with minimum terms or tariff periods of less than five years, were heard together before the European Court of Human Rights because they raised a similar issue of whether the applicants’ detention following the expiry of their tariff periods had breached their right to liberty as guaranteed under article 5(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. As well as contending that article 5(1) had been breached, the applicants also sought just satisfaction for non-pecuniary loss under article 41 of the convention. The issue for determination was whether there had been a violation of article 5(1) of the convention in respect of the applicants’ detention following the expiry of their tariff periods. An issue arose as to whether one of the purposes of the applicants’ detention was their rehabilitation, particularly in the light of the fact that, by virtue of section 142 of the 2003 act, the sentencing objectives were disapplied in the case of sentences for IPP. Consideration was given to the delay in determining whether it had been safe to release the applicants and to reports on the impact on the applicants of the unavailability of treatment courses due to their detention at local prisons following the expiration of their tariff. The court ruled: (1) The object and purpose of article 5(1) was to ensure that no one was dispossessed of his liberty in an arbitrary fashion. The right of liberty was of fundamental importance. In order to assess whether an applicant’s detention post-tariff was arbitrary, the court had to have regard to the detention as a whole. While case law demonstrated that indeterminate detention for the public protection could be justified under article 5(1), it could not be allowed to open the door to arbitrary detention. For a deprivation of liberty not to be arbitrary there had to be some relationship between the ground of permitted deprivation of liberty relied on and the place and conditions of detention. The requirement that detention not be arbitrary implied the need for a relationship of proportionality between the ground of detention relied upon and the detention in question. Where a government sought to rely solely on the risk posed by offenders to the public in order to justify their continued detention, regard had to be had to the need to encourage the rehabilitation of those offenders. In cases concerning indeterminate sentences of imprisonment for the protection of the public, a real opportunity for rehabilitation was a necessary element of any part of the detention which was to be justified solely by reference to public protection. Accordingly, one of the purposes of the applicants’ detention had been their rehabilitation. While article 5(1) did not impose any absolute requirement for prisoners to have immediate access to all courses they might require, any restrictions or delays encountered as a result of resource considerations had to be reasonable in all the circumstances of the case, bearing in mind that whether a particular course was made available to a particular prisoner depended entirely on the actions of the authorities (see [187], [194], [195], [201], [209], [218] of the judgment). In the instant case, where the government had sought to rely solely on the risk posed by offenders to the public in order to justify their continued detention, it had been required to provide the applicants with reasonable opportunities to undertake courses aimed at helping them to address their offending behaviour and the risks they posed. It was significant that substantial periods of time had passed in respect of each of the applicants before they had even begun to make any progress in their sentences. It was clear that the delays were the result of a lack of resources, and it was significant that the inadequate resources at issue in the instant case appeared to be the consequence of the introduction of draconian measures for indeterminate detention without the necessary planning and without realistic consideration of the impact of the measures. Further, the length of the delays in the applicants’ cases had been considerable. It followed, in those circumstances, that there had been a violation of article 5(1) of the convention in respect of the applicants’ detention following the expiry of their tariff periods, and until steps were taken to progress them through the prison system with a view to providing them with access to appropriate rehabilitative courses (see [218], [220]-[222] of the judgment). A declaration would be made that there had been a violation of article 5(1) of the convention in respect of the applicants’ detention following the expiry of their tariff periods and until steps were taken to progress them through the prison system with a view to providing them with access to appropriate rehabilitative courses (see [250] of the judgment). Lawless v Ireland (No 3) (application 332/57) 1 EHRR 15 considered; Winterwerp v Netherlands (application 6301/73) 2 EHRR 387 considered; Guzzardi v Italy (application 7367/76) 3 EHRR 333 considered; Bouamar v Belgium (application 9106/80) [1988] ECHR 9106/80 considered; Saadi v United Kingdom (Application No 13229/03) [2008] ECHR 13229/03 considered. (2) Making an assessment on an equitable basis, the applicants would be awarded €3,000 (in the case of J); €6,200 (in the case of W); and €8,000 (in the case of L) in respect of non-pecuniary damage (see [250] of the judgment). James and others v United Kingdom (app nos 25119/09, 57715/09 and 57877/09): European Court of Human Rights (Judges Lech Garlicki (president), David Thór Björgvinsson, Nicolas Bratza, George Nicolaou, Zdravka Kalaydjieva, Nebojša Vucinic, Vincent De Gaetano): 18 September 2012center_img Join our LinkedIn Human Rights sub-grouplast_img read more