Brewery aims to reduce waste by 80%
A brewery firm has launched a scheme to reduce the general waste in its 45 managed pubs by 80%.
St Austell Brewery, Cornwall, launched the initiative in partnership with Biffa, a waste management company.
There are aims to double the amount of waste being recycled as part of the plan and to hit the 80% target by the end of the year.
All St Austell Brewery's managed pubs have colour-coded bins which are divided into three sections: dry mixed recycling, food waste and general waste.
St Austell Brewery said it would educate colleagues on correct recycling and is rolling out a supporting employee encouragement plan to help drive engagement and participation.
It said this included a leaderboard for pubs, where the team with the highest reduction in waste overall would be rewarded with online vouchers to spend every quarter.
Helen Sprason, area manager and member of the sustainability steering committee at St Austell Brewery, said: "One of the first things we did when we started the project was to engage our pub teams about proper recycling."
She added last year St Austell Brewery successfully reduced total waste by 40%.
"We're confident this is one of the biggest waste management schemes to be undertaken by a pub company," she said.
Following the launch of the new waste scheme in its pubs, the brewery said it also planned to extend it across St Austell and Hare, its head office and depots across the South West.
Follow BBC Cornwall on X, Facebook and Instagram. Send your story ideas to spotlight@bbc.co.uk.
St Austell Brewery set to cut up to 40 jobs
Pub landlord fears Budget may cost him £24K a year
St Austell Brewery
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Cooper still in last-minute talks with Treasury over spending review
The Home Office remains locked in negotiations with the Treasury over its budget with time running out before the spending review. Rachel Reeves is expected to announce above-inflation increases in the policing budget when she sets out her spending plans for the next three years on Wednesday. But Home Secretary Yvette Cooper is yet to agree a final settlement with the Chancellor, with reports suggesting greater police spending will mean a squeeze on other areas of her department's budget. Downing Street is now understood to be involved in the talks, with Ms Cooper the last minister still to reach a deal with the Treasury. The spending review is expected to see funding increases for the NHS, schools and defence along with a number of infrastructure projects as the Chancellor shares out some £113 billion freed up by looser borrowing rules. But other areas could face cuts as she seeks to balance manifesto commitments with more recent pledges, such as a hike in defence spending, while meeting her fiscal rules that promise to match day-to-day spending with revenues. On Monday morning, technology minister Sir Chris Bryant insisted that the spending review would not see a return to austerity, telling Times Radio that period was 'over'. But he acknowledged that some parts of the budget would be 'much more stretched' and 'difficult'. One of those areas could be London, where Sir Sadiq Khan's office is concerned the spending review will include no new projects or funding for the capital. The mayor had been seeking extensions to the Docklands Light Railway and Bakerloo Underground line, along with powers to introduce a tourist levy and a substantial increase in funding for the Metropolitan Police, but his office now expects none of these will be approved. A source close to the Mayor said ministers 'must not return to the damaging, anti-London approach of the last government', adding this would harm both London's public services and 'jobs and growth across the country'. They said: 'Sadiq will always stand up for London and has been clear it would be unacceptable if there are no major infrastructure projects for London announced in the spending review and the Met doesn't get the funding it needs. 'We need backing for London as a global city that's pro-business, safe and well-connected.' Last week, Ms Reeves acknowledged she had been forced to turn down requests for funding for projects she would have wanted to back, in a sign of the behind-the-scenes wrangling over her spending review. The Department of Health is set to be the biggest winner, with the NHS expected to receive a boost of up to £30 billion at the expense of other public services. Meanwhile, day-to-day funding for schools is expected to increase by £4.5 billion by 2028-9 compared with the 2025-6 core budget, which was published in the spring statement. Elsewhere, the Government has committed to spend 2.5% of gross domestic product on defence from April 2027, with a goal of increasing that to 3% over the next parliament – a timetable which could stretch to 2034. Ms Reeves' plans will also include an £86 billion package for science and technology research and development.
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
What parts of a wedding budget are tariffs affecting? We explain
Corrections & clarifications: An earlier version of this story misidentified the year covered by a survey. It has been corrected in the story. As a florist, Allison Krivachek is doing her best to navigate tariff increases to imported flowers to keep costs for her brides and grooms down. As a bride-to-be, Krivachek is also trying to make choices to keep her July wedding budget from increasing. Brides, grooms and wedding vendors are in similar boats as prices for imported goods and tariffs add more costs to an already expensive life event. Many different aspects of the wedding day will be affected by tariffs, including alcohol, flowers, the wedding dress and goods such as centerpiece decorations if they are imported, according to The Knot, a wedding website. As much as 80% of cut flowers are imported from other countries and 90% of wedding gowns sold in the U.S. are imported, according to The Knot, which could hike up wedding costs. In a survey of 741 engaged brides and grooms users of The Knot, shared exclusively with USA TODAY, 73% of couples said keeping costs within their budget were the top concern, while 46% said economic factors such as inflation were a major concern. Thirty-four percent were concerned about the rising costs of goods that could impact weddings though price changes specifically due to tariffs were less of a concern with 15% of couples mentioning it. More than half of engaged couples (58%) said they hadn't seen tariffs impact their weddings yet, but 36% said they were making changes to their plans due to economic stress. Of those couples, 22% are adjusting their budgets while 68% said they were increasing their budgets. Rather than cutting back, many couples responded to the concerns of looming tariffs by taking the proactive steps like booking early and consulting pros. About 1 in 3 couples are purchasing items earlier to lock in pricing. Many are opting for U.S.-made or local products to offset import costs. 28% of couples are slightly reducing guest count by an average 25 people, or 12 couples, not wanting to sacrifice the guest experience (average 112 guests). Vendors are good about helping couples figure out ways to make changes to suit their budget or plan for increases, said Lauren Kay, executive editor of The Knot. "They want to help you have the best wedding ever and they want to help you pull that off, whether that's avoiding a tariff or making a trade off so your budget isn't terribly impacted," Kay told USA TODAY. Couples do not seem to be panicking, Kay said, as they deal with another moment in wedding planning. "It's not so much of a concern about the tariffs, itself, but just thinking about how we are going to plan our weddings and stay within budget with all of the economic factors that we're facing today," she said. The average U.S. wedding in 2024 costs $33,000, down slightly from $35,000 for 2023, according to The Knot's Real Weddings 2025 Study. Some vendors, like Krivachek, are already starting to see those increases. "When they first came out, it was like, oh my gosh, this is going to be really devastating. We were seeing anywhere from 10% to 25%, and when you're talking about a wedding in flowers, when it's $5,000 plus, that 10% to 25%... really adds up quickly," said Krivachek, referring to the average floral budget for weddings. Some suppliers have also used the tariff news to unfairly raise prices as much as double, Krivachek said. A lot of florists and couples have been panicking on how to offset tariff increases and checking contract language, which may allow vendors to raise prices due to market fluctuations, she said. Krivachek said she and other wedding vendors learned during the COVID-19 pandemic that they had to include a clause in their contracts to allow for unexpected market pricing fluctuations. She added she's communicated with consumers about other options, rather than pass tariff-related prices to prospective brides and grooms. "They can either up their budget to keep everything the same or we can sub with local varieties, which I've been loving and it's really been a positive thing for local growers," Krivachek said. She has told some brides, especially those with winter weddings, that if their heart is set on a particular type of flower that cannot be grown domestically in the winter, they will have to increase their budget. Krivachek is also getting married in July. Her floral budget is the largest portion of her budget at a hefty $36,000, partially because she feels like she needs to make a statement as a florist. She's made some adjustments to keep her budget the same, including using a lot of landscaping plants and bushes. "I'm excited about that because I want to make that a trend where you use these flowers and bushes that you get to take home and plant and remember your wedding and have it be sustainable," she said. She has also reduced the number of imported cut flowers she is getting to stay within her budget. She has not seen any tariff-related increases on other parts of her wedding budget, she said. Uncomfortable Conversations: Being a bridesmaid is expensive. Can or should you say no? A lot of the components to design and make a gown come from various countries, so between the materials and the execution of the product being made and transported, tariffs impact the price, said Nayri Kalayjian, owner of Lovella Bridal in Los Angeles. "Price increases are everywhere, so the wedding industry is no different, no matter where the gown is being manufactured," she said. Some designers are doing a straight price increase while others have added a percentage for the tariffs, she said. Kalayjian said she's seen some tariff surcharges anywhere from 10% to 35%. But typically bridal boutiques see price increases multiple times a year, regardless of tariffs, Kalayjian said. Kalayjian said she often tells brides if they see a dress they absolutely love, don't wait too long or it could be discontinued or increase in price. Bridal gowns are also taking longer to make since they are all custom-ordered, she said. The turnaround time is typically six to eight months. However, Kalayjian also said there are dresses at every price point for every budget, even with price increases. Brides can often get sample dresses at steep discounts, she said. (This story has been updated to correct an error.) Betty Lin-Fisher is a consumer reporter for USA TODAY. Reach her at blinfisher@ or follow her on X, Facebook or Instagram @blinfisher and @ on Bluesky. Sign up for our free The Daily Money newsletter, which will include consumer news on Fridays, here. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: How are tariffs impacting weddings? We explain.
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
Horse trading session has arrived at N.H. State House
Both the New Hampshire House of Representatives and Senate worked late into the night Thursday as they tried desperately to revive bills that the other branch didn't want. The political game of chicken is expected to continue this week when the two bodies return to session to create committees of conference that will be charged with trying to work out differences between competing versions of a bill. This stage in the budget process signals that the 2025 session, barring a negotiating meltdown, will conclude in the coming weeks. Once named, the conference committees will have until June 19 to come up with an agreement that the Legislature must act upon by June 26. Both bodies must vote to create these panels with three state senators and four House members. Any agreement requires all conferees to sign onto the proposal; it then returns to the House and Senate for an up-or-down vote, meaning lawmakers at that final meeting are unable to amend it in any fashion. The two-year state budget is the biggest and most consequential of the disputes, with the Senate last week approving its measure that spent nearly $250 million more than the House-approved version. All of this one-upmanship resulted in some strange bedfellows, like when the Senate voted to add to a bill increasing the penalty for wrong-way driving (HB 776) and a Senate-passed bill to declare the Virginia opossum the state marsupial (SB 30). Sen. Donovan Fenton, D-Keene, thanked his colleagues for this act taken because the House put his own bill at risk when, earlier this month, it had tacked onto it new penalties for improper application of fertilizer. Senate Democratic Leader Rebecca Perkins Kwoka of Portsmouth couldn't resist a punning quip. 'I'm glad the senator from Dist. 10 (Fenton) has not played dead on his bill,' she joked. The House responded last week, adding to a bill raising the personal allowance that residents of nursing homes are allowed to keep (SB 118) the House-passed bill that would allow medically eligible patients to grow their own marijuana rather than have to buy it at alternative treatment centers at market costs. House keeps pushing cannabis agenda Rep. Gary Daniels, R-Milford, tried to convince his colleagues to drop this last-ditch effort. 'The Senate has rejected every single cannabis bill the House has sent it. Do we really want to put a good bill at risk by insisting this be included?' Daniels asked rhetorically. Rep. Wendy Thomas, D-Merrimack, a cancer survivor, said as an eligible patient she takes marijuana every day and that the underlying personal allowance issue is already contained in versions of the state budget. The House voted 215-103 to keep the marijuana bill as part of the House position. Not all of these gambits succeeded. Rep. Judy Aron, R-Acworth and chairman of the House Environment and Agriculture Committee, had wanted to add to legislation that designated Coos County as an economically distressed area to (SB 180), an unrelated bill from her committee to enhance state rules regarding the approval of future landfills that the Senate had rejected (HB 707). The House voted 166-163 against that idea, choosing to keep the Coos County economic bill clean. In one of its last moves, the Senate voted to add onto a temporary youth operator driver's license bill (HB 612) its legislation to declare the third week in September each year "New Hampshire Service Dog Week." Moments earlier, the House had voted, 179-144, to kill that service dog bill (SB 198). "We don't need a special holiday in order to say, 'Good dog,'" said Rep. Erica Layon, R-Derry. Here are some other issues that are likely to need more negotiation before they are settled: • Mandatory Minimums (SB 14): This Gov. Kelly Ayotte-priority bill that cleared the Senate set stiff mandatory prison terms for offenders selling large amounts of fentanyl and for anyone convicted of selling drugs that causes someone else's death. The House changed it to give a judge broad latitude to approve a lesser punishment if the offender meets certain criteria. The House also added to this bill a measure the Senate rejected to decriminalize possession of up to three-quarters of an ounce of psilocybin, otherwise known as magic mushrooms. This change would bring the mushrooms in line with how state law decriminalizes marijuana possession. • Risk Pools (SB 297): Secretary of State David Scanlan convinced the Senate to adopt a bill that gave his office greater power over groups that manage insurance coverage for units of government. The House instead rejected Scanlan's approach in favor of letting these risk pools decide if they would rather come under the regulation of the Insurance Department. • Tenancy Law Changes (HB 60): The House approved this bill that would permit landlords to give notice to any tenant 60 days notice that they would not be extending their lease and require tenants be evicted if they resisted this move. The Senate adopted this proposal but it would only kick in once the state had a 4% vacancy rate; currently this tight housing market has less than one-half of 1% vacancy in it. klandrigan@
