Waste Accumulation Problems and Opportunities

, , ,

by Zoltan Kish, Ph.D., Quasar ScienceTech

An incredible amount of waste is produced in Canada and around the world. Humans are dumping 2.12 billion tons of garbage every year and polluting the oceans, land, and air.  Consequently, we need sustainable and effective waste management to protect our environment and save our world.

In 2016, the Ontario government released its Strategy for a Waste-Free Ontario, diverting our wasteful ways towards an entirely circular economy.  The proposed strategy requires appropriate tools and an innovative approach to solving the tremendous waste accumulation problem.

The urgency for made-in-Canada solutions for waste management has sped up with the fact that China severely restricts the types of recyclables it accepts.  Prior to the plastic waste restrictions instituted in December 2017, China was the home to 45 percent of the world’s plastic waste since 1992.

Under the new circumstance, some municipal governments could get out of the recycling business altogether, and the recycled waste will end up in the landfills and the energy in waste is mostly lost.  Landfilling plastics would severely lessen the landfill capacity in Canada, already a growing concern as chronicled by Fraser Institute, the Ontario Waste Management Association, and others.

Canadian Solutions

We need more effective and sustainable ways to manage the produced waste.  Government in Canada should implement appropriate tools for the waste management challenge.  One tool would be the encouragement of using waste as a resource.  One person’s trash can be another person’s treasure.  For example, depending on the waste plastic composition and level of contaminations, the plastic feedstock could be effectively converted into high-value products through pyrolysis and waste steam gasification technologies.

If the plastic feedstock is clean and has an appropriate composition, pyrolysis (heating in the absence of oxygen) can be applied to depolymerize plastic and convert it mostly into liquid fuel.  The steam gasification reformation technology is more suitable for contaminated plastic waste conversion into high energy value syngas and hydrogen.  Additionally, syngas can be converted into liquid fuels and green chemicals using Gas-to Liquid catalytic process.

The use of advanced and effective waste-to-energy (WTE) technology applications in combination with a reliable scrubbing/cleaning system can provide a solution for biodegradable and non-biodegradable waste disposal, clean energy production, and sustainable product regeneration. The waste, potentially, can be converted into various forms of clean energy products, such as electricity, hydrogen, liquid synthetic fuels, and “green” chemicals.

Waste can be a cost-effective and environmentally-sound feedstock in the generation of clean energy, replacing a portion of fossil fuels.

High quality liquid synthetic fuels, without sulfur contamination, can be produced from waste materials by a combination of a Waste-to-Gas technology with a Gas-to-Liquids technology based on the Fischer–Tropsch catalytic process.

Regrettably, mass burn incineration has been often considered as a WTE technology to process waste for an astonishing cost and relatively minimal energy production.  For example, a new mass burn incinerator was built in York and North Yorkshire in the United Kingdom at a cost of £1.4 billion ($2.4 billion Cdn.)  The incinerator will divert more than 230,000 tonnes of household waste but will produce only 24 MW of power.

Allerton Waste Recovery Park, North Yorkshire, United Kingdom

Another example of an enormous and costly incineration facility is the one planed in Hong Kong. The incinerator will cost $4 billion and process 3000 tonnes of waste per day (1,050,000 tonnes/year).  The total amount of energy the facility will produce per year is 489 million kWh/year of energy, which is equivalent to 57 MW of power.

In my professional opinion, incineration is a very costly and inefficient way for waste conversion into electricity.  The highly pollutants generated from incineration require very expensive air pollution controls.

In a circular economy, advanced emerging waste conversion technologies (e.g., Waste-to-Energy, Waste-to-Gas, and Gas-to-Liquids technologies) can play a pivotal role in waste disposal.  Efficient waste conversion technology applications can be a path to a working circular economy. Recycling is not only based on simple reusing the waste products.

The purpose of recycling is to redesign and convert waste into forms retaining as high value as possible in a circular economy. Contaminated waste products are challenging to recycle and reuse. Garbage can be converted into high-value products through mechanical/physical, thermochemical, and biochemical processes. The waste can be transformed into various forms of sustainable and clean energy products utilizing effective waste conversion technologies in the circular economy.

The increasing amount of waste is one of the most challenging problems facing the world, which creates global environmental challenges. Contaminated waste products (e.g., plastic, paper, diapers, medical waste, waste biomass, and industrial byproducts) are challenging to recycle and reuse in the traditional way.  Therefore, we have an urgent requirement to deal with the tremendous waste accumulation.  At the same time, we have a tremendous business opportunity to convert waste into usable sustainable products.

The circular economy can be based on efficient waste conversion technologies, such as traditional gasification, steam gasification, pyrolysis, and anaerobic digestion.  Mostly, the steam gasification reformation of waste is more efficient and cost-effective than other thermo-chemical and bio-chemical technologies and able to convert both biodegradable and non-biodegradable carbonaceous waste contents into higher value clean/renewable energy products.


It is essential that sustainable waste management become an integral part of urban development. With the right approach, we could have a comprehensive and cost-effective solution for waste disposal, clean energy production, and sustainable product regeneration as a combination of biodegradable and non-biodegradable waste processing.

 About the Author

Dr. Zoltan Kish has a Ph.D. in Chemistry with over 25 years of diverse industrial and academic experience and contributed to more than 70 scientific publications. He has developed and managed complex research and development programs related to alternative/renewable energy, clean technologies, GHG, sustainability, and advanced materials applications, such as solar energy technology, ceramic engine & cutting tool components, materials processing, and electronics. Dr. Kish was the Director of Research & Development at two major Canadian alternative energy companies where he focused on R&D and commercialization of unique Waste-to-Energy technologies and reliable scrubbing/ cleaning systems to produce clean and sustainable energy products. In response to global environmental challenges and the need for scientific evaluations of new technologies and advanced materials applications, he has established a consulting company – Quasar ScienceTech (www.quasarsciencetech.com) to provide multidisciplinary science and technology consulting in the areas of Natural & Applied Sciences, Clean Technologies & Energy, Waste Conversion, Technical Due Diligence, Climate Change Mitigation, Circular Economy, Sustainability, Innovation, and Advanced Materials Applications.

What to do when a new government revokes your environmental approval

, , ,

by Stanley Berger, Fogler Rubinoff LLP


In Eagleridge International Ltd. v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Environment and Conservation) 2018 NLSC 180, following a change of government, the new Minister of Environment and Conservation withdrew approval for the construction of a gravel road intended to facilitate mineral exploration on lands for which mining licences were held and ordered that the project be subject to a full environmental assessment (EA). The licence holder, and project proponent, Eagleridge had already delivered an Environmental Preview Report as required by the previous government, and during the period awaiting approval had incurred approximately $400,000 in expenses including the cost of meeting the conditions for approval. The conditions included an Environmental Effects and Monitoring Plan and a Rare Lichen survey. A group of interested citizens appealed the previous government’s decision to release the project from a full EA. That appeal was filed with the Minister outside the limitation period, the Minister did not issue a decision on the appeal within the prescribed period and there was no express statutory authority to place the appeal “on hold” during this time. Over a year after the appeal had been filed, the Appellants wrote the new Minister requesting a decision on the Appeal. During that time frame, Eaglebridge continued to expend money on the project. The new government advised Eagleridge that the appeal would be revived. Eagleridge filed written submissions respecting the revived appeal process, but the decision to release the project from a full EA was nevertheless overturned by the new government without addressing the objections raised by Eagleridge. The rationale provided by the Minister focussed on the effects of the project on the biophysical and socio-economic environments of the project area, significant public concerns and the recommendations of the Environmental Assessment Committee which had issued the guidelines for the original Environmental Preview Report.

The area of the mineral access road in Newfoundland, as originally proposed by Eagleridge International in the registration for environmental assessment with the province in September 2013


The reconsideration of the appeal as a device to reverse the previous Minister’s decision to release the project from a full EA was a breach of natural justice as Eagleridge was denied any opportunity to state its case and the decision to revive the appeal was without reasons or rationale. The reconsideration of the appeal was without statutory authority and was quashed. Had the judgment stopped there it would have been a matter-of-fact administrative law opinion. However, the Newfoundland Supreme Court went further and assumed that the power existed in the Provincial Government to still call for a full EA. Notwithstanding that assumed power, the Court held that Eagleridge had recourse to the administrative law doctrine of public law estoppel. It cited the Supreme Court of Canada description of the doctrine in
Immeubles Jacques Robitaille inc. c. Québec (Ville), 2014 SCC 34 (S.C.C.):

The reconsideration of the appeal as a device to reverse the previous Minister’s decision to release the project from a full EA was a breach of natural justice as Eagleridge was denied any opportunity to state its case and the decision to revive the appeal was without reasons or rationale. The reconsideration of the appeal was without statutory authority and was quashed. Had the judgment stopped there it would have been a matter-of-fact administrative law opinion. However, the Newfoundland Supreme Court went further and assumed that the power existed in the Provincial Government to still call for a full EA. Notwithstanding that assumed power, the Court held that Eagleridge had recourse to the administrative law doctrine of public law estoppel. It cited the Supreme Court of Canada description of the doctrine in
Immeubles Jacques Robitaille inc. c. Québec (Ville), 2014 SCC 34 (S.C.C.):

“19. In the public law context, promissory estoppel requires proof of a clear and unambiguous promise made to a citizen by a public authority in order to induce the citizen to perform certain acts. In addition, the citizen must have relied on the promise and acted on it by changing his or her conduct (), 2001 SCC 41, [2001] 2 S.C.R. 281 (S.C.Centre hospitalier Mont-Sinaï c. Québec (Ministre de la Santé & des Services sociauxC.), at paras. 45-46 (“Mount Sinai“), quoting Maracle v. Travelers Indemnity Co. of Canada, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 50 (S.C.C.); J.-P. Villaggi, L’Administration publique québècoise et le processus décisionnel: Des pouvoirs au contrôle administratif et judiciaire (2005), at p. 329).

  1. However, the doctrine of estoppel must yield in the public law context to an overriding public interest and may not be invoked to prevent the application of an express legislative provision (Mount Sinai, at para. 47; St. Ann’s Island Shooting & Fishing Club Ltd. v. R., [1950] S.C.R. 211 (S.C.C.), at p. 220).”

The government argued that the overall public interest in the environment weighed against the application of promissory estoppel. Government officials initially recommended to Cabinet that the project was not in the public interest because the development would take place in proximity to a protected wilderness area and a wildlife park and could have significant implications for a nearby salmon river. The Court rejected this argument on the basis that Cabinet had considered the recommendation and decided to nevertheless release the project from a full EA.

“It goes without saying that environmental considerations are important in assessing the public interest. But defining the public interest is the role of elected officials not the Court.” (par. 115)

What was the Remedy?

Eagleridge was entitled to proceed in accordance with the release from the full EA granted by the Minister before the change in government.

“If the government determines by a lawful means that the release should be reversed, or at least altered, then Eagleridge, under the doctrine of public interest estoppel, is entitled to claim its reasonable costs associated with its actions in pursuance of the release.” (at par.117)

This article was first published in the Fogler Rubinoff LLP website.


About the Author

Mr. Berger has practiced regulatory law for 37 years. He represents nuclear operators and suppliers , waste management operators, renewable energy operators, receivers -in -bankruptcy, municipalities and First Nations. He has been certified as a specialist in environmental law by the Law Society of Ontario since 2006.

He was an Assistant Crown Attorney in Toronto for 8 years , Senior counsel and Deputy Director for Legal Services /Prosecutions at the Ministry of the Environment for 9 years and Assistant General Counsel at Ontario Power Generation Inc for 14 years.

He is the author of a quarterly loose-leaf service published by Thomson Reuters entitled the Prosecution and Defence of Environmental Offences and the editor of an annual review of environmental law.

-Mr. Berger was the President of the International Nuclear Law Association (2008-2009) and the founder, and President of the Canadian Nuclear Law Organization .

How to Implement a Zero Waste Event for 100,000

, , , ,

 by Barry Friesen, General Manager of Cleanfarms Inc. and an Etobicoke, Ontario Rotarian

Imagine hosting a dinner party for 100,000 people.  Where do you seat them? Where do they park? Where do you find enough food to feed them?  And the overflow of packaging and compostables in your green and blue bins would fill a house.

Volunteer staff sorting waste at the recycling station

That’s what the Etobicoke Rotary has done for 18 years with its Toronto Ribfest held in Centennial Park, Toronto to celebrate Canada Day and raise money for charity. Typically, 100,000 people over four days enjoy ribs, music, friendship and fellowship, all the while raising money for important causes.

Toronto Ribfest

A small army of volunteers from Etobicoke Rotary spends a year planning and then executing the event.

The volunteers plan for: parking, entry, food, on-site activities, health and safety, emergency routes and of course, managing the waste generated at the event.

My assignment, carried out during my ‘spare’ time, is to manage City permits, fencing, toilets, grey water collection, grease collection, electrical systems and, closest to my heart, waste-resource management. To add to this complicated task, several years ago we went ‘Zero Waste’.

I’ve been a waste management professional for most of my engineering career and currently run Cleanfarms, an industry-led company that operates across the country. While we manage a different waste stream, picking up agricultural wastes from over 1,200 collection locations, I do know that designing the right system is key to success.  It needs to be convenient and efficient for users or they simply won’t participate.

So, while the Toronto Ribfest is more modest in comparison, it’s definitely challenging- as Blue Box program operators will know, but we started small and are continuing to expand an ‘on-site’ public space diversion programs for this event. Our original waste diversion program consisted of gathering beer cans for the deposit-refund – not a tremendous diversion rate, but it was a start!

Of course, the rule of thumb for any waste project is to understand what is being generated. For Ribfest, there are two kinds of waste – in front of the counter and behind the counter.  Each is managed differently but both can be separated into three streams – organics, recycling and waste.  Here’s how we do it.

Front of the Counter Waste

Clamshell containers, napkins, small cups for sauces, drink containers and, of course, food waste comprise front of counter waste. To achieve diversion goals, volunteers hand sort waste into various streams.  And to ensure ease in sorting, our vendor contracts specify wooden cutlery, paper napkins (no non-recyclable wet-naps), paper straws, paper cups for sauces and compostable fibre clamshell containers to limit non-recyclable and non-compostable waste.

The Ribfest ‘zero waste kit’ with compostable, recyclable, reusable components

We took these seven steps to reduce front counter waste:

  1. Situated 10 strategically-located recycling tents where volunteers separated waste into four streams – recycling, deposit beer cans, composting and waste.
  2. Used clear plastic bags for garbage and recycling to facilitate sorting.
  3. Separated beer cans for deposit-refunds and the remaining non-deposit drink containers for recycling.
  4. Mandated a compostable paper straw this year because plastic straws proved too hard to separate from remaining waste.
  5. Eliminated ‘wet-naps’ and set up sanitizer stands at recycling stations and hot wash stations at four washroom areas for patrons to clean their hands.
  6. Eliminated most garbage cans. As exceptions, we put garbage cans at washroom stations for paper towel waste and at park exits to capture beer cans; these wastes were sorted later into proper streams.
  7. Placed organics in paper leaf and yard waste bags donated by Canadian Tire.

We placed five dumpsters provided by Miller Waste just outside the festival boundary. Accessible only by staff, they were labelled for old corrugated cardboard (OCC), recycling, garbage and two for organics.

Miller Waste emptied the dumpsters daily into dedicated rear packer trucks.

Organics and waste went to Walker Environmental to manage. The City of Toronto was the destination for recycling and OCC. Beer cans were returned to the Beer Store.

Behind the Counter Waste

Behind the counter waste is made up of corrugated cardboard, large cans, plastic pails, stretch wrap, bottles, organics and varying amounts of garbage, most of which is recyclable or compostable.  We provided vendors with clear plastic bags and organic yard waste bags.  The vendor’s job was to separate the waste – easy to do.  Our job was to pick it up and take it to the proper dumpster.

Lessons learned on our journey to zero waste.

There are many lessons we learned on our journey and many more we will still encounter.  Of all of them, I would point out a few.  First, it took us almost five years to get to our ‘sweet spot’ where things just seem to work. Rome wasn’t built in a day, and likewise, our waste diversion plan has been tweaked over a few events.

Another thing we learned is that there are side benefits to good programming.  Litter, for instance, has been down substantively since we started.  When patrons of the event see the service they receive, they appreciate it and go out of their way to help in other ways like reducing litter in the rest of the park.

Another key to success is ensuring we have a master sorter. We found one and each year sorting improved to a point where there is no need for retraining each year.

Rotary Etobicoke’s Toronto Ribfest – By the Numbers

Ribbers (BBQing and serving ribs)

Other food vendors 13
Recycling Stations 10
Garbage cans throughout the park 6
Man-hours in the recycling/sorting tents 1,200
Man-hours moving waste from tents to dumpsters 840
Total amount of solid waste (tonnes) 23.46
Total amount of organic (tonnes) 12.42 (53%)
Total amount of recycling (tonnes) 5.36 (23%)
Total amount of landfilled waste (tonnes) 5.68 (24%)
Total waste diversion 76%*

*During the first three days the actual diversion was 87%, but considerable other waste created at the end of the event brought the diversion number down.)

Where to Next?

In 2018, we achieved 76% waste diversion.  That’s a far cry from the few beer cans we recycled in the past.  The City of Toronto has a goal of 70% waste diversion and we’ve beaten that. But should we stop now?  I know we can do better. I’ve seen what goes into our waste bin and know there is still a lot more we can do. In fact, knowing that we achieved 87% diversion our first three days is testament to what can be done, not just at the Toronto Ribfest but maybe also at other events around the province.

For more information, email Barry Friesen.

Global E-waste Disposal Market Status and Outlook 2018-2025

, , ,

Orbis Research, a market research company, recently published an updated report on the global e-waste Recycling market.  This report provides detailed historical analysis of global market for E-waste Recycling from 2013-2018, and provides extensive market forecasts from 2018-2028 by region/country and subsectors. It covers the sales volume, price, revenue, gross margin, historical growth and future perspectives in the E-waste Recycling market.

Included in the report is a profile of the leading players of e-waste recycling including Sims Recycling Solutions,
Eletronic Recyclers International, GEEP, Waste Management, and Veolia.

The report describes the market into sub-sectors by type of equipment (infocomm technology (ICT) equipment and home appliances, and other types of equipment), by application (i.e., refrigerators, televisions, computers, etc.) and by sales channel (direct vs. distribution).

In the report, there is information on e-waste recycling in various regions and countries including North America,
Europe, Asia-Pacific, South America, and the Middle East & Africa.

Nigerian e-waste recycling facility

Previous Global E-Waste Management Market reports performed by competing market research companies predicted that the global e-waste recycling market to be worth $49.4 billion by 2020. It is one of the fastest growing waste streams in emerging as well as developed regions.

Another market research company, Grand View Research, Inc., issued a global e-waste market report in the summer of 2018 which forecast h 63.705 million tonnes  of e-waste would be recycled by 2025.  The Grand View Research report warned that the high costs associated with e-waste recycling is expected to hinder the market growth. The report also stated that  the procurement of high-end machinery to effectively recycle the scrap coupled with instructing the workers about the meticulous execution of every step remain to be the major hurdles in the growth of the e-waste management market. However, the report was optimistic that the e-waste recycling market would continue to grow as the awareness about the hazardous effects of e-waste on human health along with strict regulations concerning the generation and treatment of e-waste in a majority of countries are expected to reduce the effect of the challenges.

Australia’s first WTE Facility will utilize Belgium Technology

, ,

Keppel Seghers Belgium N.V. (Keppel Seghers), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Keppel Infrastructure Holdings Pte Ltd (Keppel Infrastructure), recently announced that it has secured a contract to supply waste-to-energy (WTE) technology and services worth over $668 million (AUS) for Australia’s first WTE plant in the City of Kwinana, in Western Australia.

Kwinana has a population of 39,000 people and is approximately 40 kilometers south of Perth.

The projects proponents claim it will be the first of its kind in Australia, integrating the disposal of waste with the generation of energy to provide a practical solution to two community challenges: waste disposal and renewable energy supply.

Co-developed by a consortium of the Dutch Infrastructure Fund, Macquarie Capital and Phoenix Energy Australia, the Kwinana project is also part-funded by a $23 million grant from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency.

The Kwinana WTE Plant will process up to 400,000 tonnes a year of of household, commercial and industrial waste — one quarter of Perth’s post recycling rubbish — will be diverted from landfill to be thermally treated and converted into steam to produce electricity.  It is estimated that the WTE facility will generate 36MW of  electricity.


Artist’s Rendering of the Kwinana waste-to-energy plant

The bottom ash produced at the WTE facility will be used to make construction materials.

Keppel Seghers will provide to the Acciona consortium, who is the Engineering, Procurement and Construction contractor of the project, the core equipment, design, and technical services for the plant’s furnace, boiler and flue gas treatment.

The facility will feature Keppel Seghers’ air-cooled grate and vertical boiler, which are designed to achieve efficient energy recovery and operational reliability. When completed in 2021, the facility can effectively reduce the volume of waste that goes to landfills by over 90%.

Dr Ong Tiong Guan, CEO of Keppel Infrastructure, said, “Keppel is well-positioned to capture opportunities arising from the drive for sustainable development and deliver world-class solutions to meet the demand for clean, liveable environments. To be chosen as the technology provider for Australia’s first WTE project is a resounding affirmation of the strength and reliability of Keppel Seghers’ WTE technology. ”

More than 800 construction jobs will be available, and 60 people will be employed to run the facility through Veolia under a 25-year agreement.

Glass Recycling Innovation in Europe

, ,

Glasso Recycling, headquartered in Ireland, recently announced that it had made a $2 million euro investment in a  facility specializing in the recycling of non-transparent glass waste.

The facility, located in Town of Naas within the County of Kildare in Ireland, the company claims that the facility will be able to recycle 10,000 tonnes of non-transparent glass waste per year.

According to Glassco, the glass – which is very dark in colour, and typically used to package cream liqueurs and other delicate drinks – blocks the sun rays and light which can cause the product inside to deteriorate quickly. This glass, while ideal for protecting the contents of the bottle “is not so good for the bottle’s green credentials,” the company explains.

As a result of the investment, Glassco said it will supply the glass manufacturing industry with dark non-transparent cullet as a separate colour stream, which offers energy savings to glass bottle manufacturers.

Managing director of Glassco, Zeki Mustafa, explains: “Glass recyclers like us, rely on optical sorting machines, to automatically remove contamination from the waste glass stream. Until now, these machines had no way to differentiate between a stone or piece of ceramic, and a piece of non-transparent glass, which meant that all dark non-transparent glass ended up being rejected and landfilled.”

The Technology

According to Glassco, the facility is the “first of its kind” and uses high speed cameras and LED lighting technology

According to the company, the installation is the “first of its kind”, and uses ultra-sensitive, high speed cameras with a scan rate of more than 20,000 scans per second to identify up to 100,000 pieces of glass per minute and remove the good glass for recycling. In combination with “ultra-bright” LED lighting technology, the cameras can produce several precise optical measurements of each piece of glass. Together with a new evaluation algorithm with artificial intelligence, this new system can differentiate between the dark glass and Ceramic, Stone and Porcelain (CSP) pieces, Glassco reports.

Mr Mustafa continued: “We are delighted to be able to pioneer this new technology and help Ireland exceed the EU glass recycling target of 75% by 2025 and continue to push past our current rate of 90%.

“This new plant represents a €2 million investment for us together with years of planning and R&D and we would like to thank Repak Glass for their foresight and continued support to help us make this possible.”

Circular Economy

One of the buyers of the final product is Encirc, a container glass manufacturer with two facilities in Ireland.

Adrian Curry, managing director of Encirc, who will be the main buyer of the new product said: “Having another 10,000 tonnes of any cullet available is great for our business but having such a large quantity of this unique product will allow us to increase the recycling rate in our amber bottles by a significant amount which is a win win for our customers and the environment.”

Glassco Recycling Ltd reports to hold collection and recycling contracts with 25 local authorities across Ireland. The company operates from a waste permitted processing facility in Naas, along with collection depots in Cork and Galway in Ireland.


Fun with Waste: Making a Statement on Pollution through Art

, ,

As reported in Around DB, two artists living near Hong Kong, Liina Klauss and Agnes Pang, specialize in turning recyclable waste into pieces of art in order to motivate others in the community to up their game when it comes to trash creation and disposal.

Agnes Pang’s art pieces are very simple – she deliberately keeps her works small for easy display and transportation. She uses unwanted items, for example foam netting, bricks, shells and toilet paper rolls, to create beautiful pieces of art which demonstrate to the public that the “rebirth of garbage” can bring joy and happiness.

“Art is like magic which can transform simple objects and ideas into delightful pieces. I feel like a magician when I turn things that people often neglect into something surprisingly beautiful,” Agnes says.


Agnes Pang with one of her works of art made from trash

Liina Klauss, a German art-activist who splits her time between Tong Fuk (near Hong Kong) and Bali, specializes in art installations made from the man-made and natural waste she finds on beaches and in country parks. Influenced by Berlin street-art and environmentalism, her installations not only challenge our perception of art but also our behaviour as consumers and responsibility for nature.

“When first coming across a non-gazetted beach in Hong Kong, I was shocked,” Liina opens. “These beaches looked like (and are still looking like) a dump. The sheer amount of rubbish made me feel totally helpless. Why wasn’t this in the news, in the papers, why did everybody look away? From there I had a choice to stay inactive and get depressed or use my own two hands, my voice and my creativity to do something about it.”

“I made the ugly look beautiful, I turned rubbish into rainbows and people started looking,” Liina says. “This was the start of my environmental art.