Reaching 100,000 pairs of running shoes diverted from landfill is a milestone worth pausing for. It represents a tangible environmental impact and is proof that circular solutions in sport are possible when purpose, partnerships, and persistence alignAt JogOnAgain.com, the mission has always been clear: extend the life of running shoes, reduce unnecessary waste, and challenge the idea that performance footwear is disposable. Removing 100,000 pairs from landfill is a meaningful step forward in a
And what was done with them? I can’t imagine that they were in salable or even usable condition.
Based on the article content it seems to be a variation on the usual shitty clickbait headline, this time getting clicks by being confusing and unlikely.
Probable explanation: they were not removed but just never got to the landfill in the first place. But the “article” is so light on content that it’s impossible to say for sure.
According to this article, the shoes are sorted, and where possible they are given a second life and redistributed, otherwise they are used to generate electricity.
All trainers and running shoes donated by participants will be sorted by the JogOn team to ensure they are suitable for redistribution before being sent on for reuse in the UK and overseas.
JogOn works with companies, charities and organisations that can make use of second-hand shoes, with 90% of donated shoes suitable for redistribution.
Any running shoes that are not suitable for re-use are disposed of by the JogOn team via a waste-to-energy plant where electricity is generated from incinerating waste.
That article is substantially better with a lot more detail. Also a more accurate headline. “Collected from running events” is a big difference from “dug out of a landfill”.
And what was done with them? I can’t imagine that they were in salable or even usable condition.
Based on the article content it seems to be a variation on the usual shitty clickbait headline, this time getting clicks by being confusing and unlikely.
Probable explanation: they were not removed but just never got to the landfill in the first place. But the “article” is so light on content that it’s impossible to say for sure.
According to this article, the shoes are sorted, and where possible they are given a second life and redistributed, otherwise they are used to generate electricity.
That article is substantially better with a lot more detail. Also a more accurate headline. “Collected from running events” is a big difference from “dug out of a landfill”.
Thanks for sharing the higher-quality link!
Yes, “diverted from landfill” would have been more accurate