I have worked in packaging for almost six years, and I can tell you with absolute confidence that all of our efforts towards a so-called "sustainable" future is simply not possible.

Before I tell you there ARE no options, there is still time to change the status quo. I am not against improving our environmental output. But most of the reasons for doing so is mostly based on pseudo-science.

The Climate Change Argument

In this world, we have a tiny minority always making the papers when they scream "climate change" in our faces, as if we haven't had it bad before. The Industrial Revolution of the 1800's saw the invention of the steam engine, and soon enough streets were filled with gas. That didn't stop people from living through that period of "awfulness" and continue breeding through the 1900's.

It is curious, however, that despite the air pollution of the 1800's, technology has made significant improvements and the combustion engine is not getting any better. Why? Because it's already the best it can be. Air quality is better than it was, and the screams from ignorant protestors wish to ignore the blatant fact that air quality was far worse 200 years ago, so what are they screaming about?

"We need to cut down on our carbon emissions!"

The attack on carbon dioxide has been exacerbated to extreme proportions. This is the "gas of life", for crying out loud. It is air you breathe out. Your lungs take oxygen, convert any excess to carbon dioxide, and breathe it out.

Plants take that carbon dioxide, convert it to fuel for themselves and any excess into oxygen. This process is called photosynthesis.

It is a complete contradiction to claim we need to cut down carbon in our atmosphere when we clearly need it for our own survival. The rant really comes from the fact that automotive vehicles produce carbon MONOXIDE.

This is a fact that the pseudo-scientific protestors have difficulty comprehending. Biology/Physics is clearly not their strong suit and they should stop making blatant lies and touting their ignorance everywhere.

In spite of this confusion, carbon monoxide emissions are quite negligible. Most of the "dangers" involving monoxide have been studied in isolated environments and no real-world studies have been carried out. Unless a peer-reviewed study on the subject of carbon monoxide in the atmosphere can be carried out without referring to a study involved in isolated settings, perhaps then I will listen.

If they are as dangerous as these climate fanatics claim, why is it we are still breathing? Surely the planet would be suffocating, but as we will soon find out, these gofers no nothing of any kind of science as they cannot demonstrate it.

Most of their activities involve targeted protests against common people rather than any particular government agency or authority. Yes, disrupting traffic on roads is typically the way to get attention in a protest, but protesting on major roads that are known to be busy is not a good idea, and only paints a bad picture of these protestors and people will only get frustrated and want them off the streets and in prison, ignoring their qualms and go back to normal life.

Most people simply don't care about the issues of a tiny minority. They are not a part of the solution, most will consider these protestors as part of the problem. Disrupting food supply chains is significantly worse. This is all in the name of "climate change", and if they had any compassion, they would at least justify their actions with a decent explanation. But since they don't have one, it is becoming increasingly obvious that their interest is not for the protection of people but rather their own selfish agendas.

That rant aside, they have yet to prove any of their claims.

How the Energy Crisis is Orchestrated

So, although the climate change argument is flawed and can be easily debunked by anyone with half a functioning brain cell, we can all agree that we need to do more to protect the environment. We are in an environmental crisis, but this is primarily exacerbated by the decommissioning of nuclear power plants and the turning on of fossil fuel alternatives.

Remember the Fukushima Power Plant? You should. It is the reference these climate activists point to when they are challenged by someone more intelligent than them. It doesn't prop up all the time, but when it does, they claim that because it happened at Fukushima, it can happen anywhere. This is the primary reason for shutting down nuclear power plants, because we can't have a disaster like that again.

Of course, now we have an energy crisis, purported as being the result of the Russia-Ukraine war in the media, is really the result of turning off nuclear power plants. If the operators of these plants simply said, "No, we're not turning off", we wouldn't have this problem.

But by the virtue of ignorant protestors and pressure from authority, nuclear power plants were shut down.

Again, the reason for the shut down of these nuclear power plants is in the name of "climate change", and whatever you say to these gofers, they wave their hand and expect you to believe their nonsense.

They want "sustainable" solutions for a "sustainable" future, whatever that means.

What is Sustainable Packaging?

I work at a label and flexible packaging manufacturer (previously, I was in paper packaging). So, this article may be a bit more long-winded than my usual as I am quite passionate about this, knowing that people are so unbelievably stupid.

The concept of "sustainable" packaging is a type of packaging that can go into the 3 R's of sustainability in some way: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle.

So, what are the current options?

Glass - Naturally, glass is a very heavy option. It is considered one of the least ethical options, as it pushes down against vehicles and requires vehicles to accelerate at greater power. However, the actual difference in emissions between a lorry filled with pouches versus a lorry filled with glass I do not believe has been studied.

Paper - Perhaps better known as corrugated packaging (cardboard boxes), it requires the use of trees to produce. Multinational corporations like Westrock and Smurfit Kappa own private forestry, in which they perform the so-called "8 rotation" and replant as they chop down trees, so when they rotate back round the new trees have sprouted up to a reasonable height for re-chopping. However, this process involves the use of chemicals in order to accelerate the growth process. This acceleration generally affects soil fertility over time and reduces the potential for growth, damaging surrounding lands.

Aluminium - This is a mineral mined from the earth. Used primarily for tinned cans and the manufacturing of automotive vehicles, aluminium is a strong and sturdy alternative. However, its environmental impact is quite significant, and especially when you need to protect users from potential poisoning from aluminium. Typically, a thin lining of plastic is applied inside a tin can, protecting anything contained in the can from contamination of the adjacent mineral.

Aluminium poisoning is not something to laugh about. It can cause serious brain injuries and there may even be issues revolving the mineral inside the stomach as well.

Plastic - The most used material for packaging is, of course, plastic. It is cheap, affordable, the second easiest to recycle after paper, and more lightweight than aluminium or glass. Most of the dangers of plastic from the ethical standpoint is primarily from the laziness of authority to introduce better plastic recycling options, primarily in the capacity.

The UK is one of the fewer countries which still does not have dedicated plastic recycling facilities. We have recycling facilities which use automated machines to divide recycled items, but nothing else. There is also the issue of capacity.

The UK does not have the capacity to recycle the tonnes of plastic that go through the waste system, so most of the recycling is handled by private companies which are contracted by the government to perform the recycling for them. Some recycling facilities are publicly owned, but they are few and far between.

Pouches - This is the flexible packaging that is considered the most "sustainable" solution, which is not actually that sustainable. It is to the degree that you can fit more on a lorry than you could with any other type of packaging, but you're likely to be placing them inside of cardboard boxes to carry it around easier.

But perhaps the biggest concern with pouches is the fact that there are only two feasible options for most fillings: aluminium and plastic. That's right, the two least ethical options are used primarily for the production of pouches.

It is curious that most of the ignorance is a blatant oversight on the actual materials used to make most pouches, yet remains the least impacting on the planet's environment. Apparently. According to what science?

Sure, as mentioned, you can add more onto a lorry and therefore less lorries are needed, but you still need to mine aluminium from the earth or produce plastic from oil.

Most pouches also cannot be kerb-side recycled. That means you cannot put pouches into your recycle bin and put it out on the kerb. Instead, you need to contact companies like TerraCycle who can perform the recycling for you, and as they are not contracted by the government to collect pouch waste from residents, the profit of companies such as this should be subject to scrutiny.

What is the answer?

In reality, there is no real sustainable solution. We can suggest that flexible packaging, or pouches, are more sustainable than the other solutions, but they are also very expensive.

Pouches are a growing market mostly because it boasts sustainability. But because the production processes are expensive to maintain, profit margins are minimal compared to the other options, and with there being more room for error, it is a much more difficult sell to consumers to give them a pouch when a box of the same product at the same internal weight costs less.

Let's face it. Unless a real solution to the sustainability problem is actually invented, we are nowhere near as close to the sustainability goals we expect to achieve by 2030, unless we reduce the human population by at least half.

The stark reality is that there is plenty of food but not enough of the other resources to sustain humans on this planet. Unless technology advances even further, we are at a dead-end and the only plausible alternative is to simply come out and say it: "The human population must be reduced".

I am not personally advocating for a globally orchestrated attack on the human population, although I believe that has already happened without us knowing. But what we should do is make sensible decisions going forward.

Whatever these sensible decisions might be, just be careful who you follow. The climate fanatics are doomsayers touting their inner rage and making a fuss where it's not needed. They make very bold claims about this, that and the other, primarily about so-called "climate change", or technically "human-caused climate change" which is negligible and should be questioned at great length.

Climate Change is a real thing, and strangely enough the planet has been changing climate since the time it was created, but it seems the rage is coming from a lack of intelligence as it seems less people spend time researching and more time getting angry about nothing.

There is no point arguing with these unreasonable gofers in fancy dress, claiming to be the almighty God portraying a not-too-distant future about the demise of humanity unless we make significant changes to our habits.

Look to the super volcano in America and tell me that won't erupt any time soon. There are bigger threats on this planet that these climate fanatics are less interested in, and it would be curious to know what their thoughts are when that might erupt, because I can tell you this – if that super volcano erupts, we are all dead anyway, and all of this "preparation" for a stark future will be for nought.

In many ways, I would consider the climate fanatics a threat to human survival. Not only are they willing to go out of their way to use "climate change" as an excuse for disrupting food supply chains, but they are even willing to pose significant health & safety risks to the wider public.

There is no way to tell how far these gofers are willing to go, but they sure as hell will not stop until everyone's behaviour changes. They are a threat to our survival, a threat to our individual sovereignty and a threat to our freedom.

That aside, we should look after our environment more, but I'm not performing my actions or changing my behaviour based on the whims of moaning pathetic children. I am basing my change in habits on my own personal goals and beliefs, and we should do more to protect the environment.

Unfortunately, I would be doubtful if we could make improvements within the next eight years given the awful tenacity of the climate fanatics and their troublesome protests. We will see.