Present technologies for wastewater treatment do not sufficiently address the increasing pollution situation of receiving water bodies, especially with the growing use of personal care products and pharmaceuticals (PPCP) in the private household and health sector. The relevance of addressing this problem of organic pollutants was taken into account by the Directive 2013/39/EU that introduced (i) the quality evaluation of aquatic compartments, (ii) the polluter pays principle, (iii) the need for innovative and affordable wastewater treatment technologies, and (iv) the identification of pollution causes including a list of principal compounds to be monitored. In addition, a watch list of 10 other substances was recently defined by Decision 2015/495 on March 20, 2015. This list contains, among several recalcitrant chemicals, the painkiller diclofenac and the hormones 17β-estradiol and 17α-ethinylestradiol. Although some modern approaches for their removal exist, such as advanced oxidation processes (AOPs), retrofitting most wastewater treatment plants with AOPs will not be acceptable as consistent investment at reasonable operational cost. Additionally, by-product and transformation product formation has to be considered. The same is true for membrane-based technologies (nanofiltration, reversed osmosis) despite of the incredible progress that has been made during recent years, because these systems lead to higher operation costs (mainly due to higher energy consumption) so that the majority of communities will not easily accept them. Advanced technologies in wastewater treatment like membrane bioreactors (MBR) that integrate biological degradation of organic matter with membrane filtration have proven a more complete elimination of emerging pollutants in a rather cost- and labor-intensive technology. Still, most of the presently applied methods are incapable of removing critical compounds completely. In this opinion paper, the state of the art of European WWTPs is reflected, and capacities of single methods are described. Furthermore, the need for analytical standards, risk assessment, and economic planning is stressed. The survey results in the conclusion that combinations of different conventional and advanced technologies including biological and plant-based strategies seem to be most promising to solve the burning problem of polluting our environment with hazardous emerging xenobiotics.

Electric mobility is promoted as a future transport option that has environmental and economic benefits and encourages sustainable urban transportation. The aim of this study is to reveal the changes in environmental and economic performance if we switched from internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs) to battery electric (BEV) or hybrid electric (HEV) vehicles. Therefore, this research presents a comparative environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) from the Cradle-to-Grave perspective of the vehicles and a Well-to-Wheel analysis of their fuel supply. Moreover, an LCA of a BEV was performed under diverse electricity mix scenarios, which are forecasted for 2015–2050 in Lithuania. From an economic point of view, a life cycle costing was conducted for the same vehicles to estimate the economic impacts over the vehicle life cycles under Lithuanian conditions. The results show that ICEV-petrol contributes the major environmental damage in all damage categories. BEVs with the electricity mix of 2020–2050 scenarios, which are composed mainly of renewable energy sources, provide the least environmental impact. The economic results reveal that BEV and ICEV-diesel are the most cost-efficient vehicles, with the total consumer life cycle costs of approximately 5% and 15% less than ICEV-petrol and HEV, respectively.

The decarbonization of the mobility and energy sector is one of the major necessary trends for achieving targets set for the European Union (EU) in the 2020 and 2030 climate and energy frameworks. Two key technologies which offer great potential for climate change mitigation are electric vehicles (EVs) and renewable energies (REs). Thus, there is the need for innovative and stable policies in order to favor these technologies. The purpose of the study is to identify and compare features of policies for the integration of EVs, REs, and information and communication technology (ICT). This study uses an integrated Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT), and Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Environmental and Legal (PESTEL) qualitative methodology in order to show different policies and initiatives, related to e-mobility, RE and ICT, collected from five European regions. This research provides discernments to the EVs and RE challenges, such as the lack of capacity to deal with high energy demands or limited EV-charging infrastructure. On the contrary, a high percentage of REs share, raising climate change awareness, and decreasing EV prices which are great opportunities for the whole EU. Such insights encourage policymakers and other groups of interest to improve their RE and mobility policies, which could lead to effective sustainable mobility systems in urban areas.

Packaging constitutes the largest end-use market for plastics, accounting for approximately 40% of total consumption by sector. In 2021, the average plastic packaging waste generated per European Union (EU) resident was 35.9 kg, of which 14.2 kg, or around 40%, was recycled. The Directive on Packaging and Packaging Waste (94/62/EC), a pivotal environmental regulation, mandates specific recycling targets: a minimum of 50% of all plastic packaging waste must be recycled by 2025, increasing to at least 55% by 2030. These targets underscore the necessity for further advancements in the plastic and composite packaging waste sector. This review uses a PESTEL analysis to provide a comprehensive overview of six critical factors influencing the recycling of plastic and composite packaging waste. The PESTEL framework encompasses political, economic, socio-cultural (social), technological, environmental, and legal dimensions. This review underscores the key aspects of each factor that influences recycling. Moreover, the discussion outlines the key deficiencies within the recycling system for plastic and composite packaging waste, including factors such as inadequate technological capacity, the underdevelopment of the secondary polymer market, and the establishment of ambitious political targets that are challenging to attain, among others. The questions raised underscore areas that warrant further investigation.