As editor of The sceptics at Mother Jones magazine took a look at plastics packaging, recycling and biodegradbility as part of a special report on the environment titled "Waste Not Want Not."
The report isn't brand new, but I just noticed it today thanks to a link from the Surfrider Foundation's Rise Above Plastics blog.
One part of the special report attracted my interest. It is a sidebar headlined "Do Biodegradable Plastics Really Work?," and it quotes Ramani Narayan, a professor of chemical and biochemical engineering at Michigan State University and a frequently-quoted expert on topics involving degradability and packaging.
Mother Jones senior editor Dave Gilson asked Narayan six questions:
- Just how long does it take for conventional plastics to completely break down?
- But broken down plastics are better than litter, right?
- What about biodegradable plastics?
- Can biodegradable plastics break down in landfills?
- How do I avoid fake biodegradable plastics?
- So what's the best way to get rid of biodegradable plastic?
Here are some of the highlights.
On biodegradable plastics:
They're pretty neat: Microorganisms can convert biodegradable plastics into water, carbon dioxide, and biomass -- with no nasty chemical leftovers. However, there is a lot of confusion surrounding these ecofriendlier plastics -- some of it intentional. "This word 'biodegradable' has become very attractive to people trying to make quick bucks on it," explains Narayan, who helped develop biodegradable corn-based plastic. Some companies, he says, are making conventional plastic that degrades quickly and then throwing around claims about biodegradability that are unproven or just too good to be true.
What's the best way to get rid of biodegradable plastic?
"The public thinks that biodegradability means 'If I throw it away, it will completely go away,'" says Narayan. "They don't even know what 'going away' means." Real biodegradable plastic should be sent to a commercial composting facility, where it will spend its final days being eaten by microbes. But here's the catch: In 2007, only 42 communities nationwide offered compost collection. (Seventeen were in California.) And though some biodegradable plastics can be recycled, no curbside recycling program will take them. So before you buy biodegradable plastics, make sure you can help them "go away" the right way.
This makes sense, and many experts in plastics and packaging would agree with Narayan.
But it assumes that consumers pay attention to whether a package is recyclable or biodegradable. It assumes that they'll properly dispose of their single-use plastics -- collecting and sorting items based on whether they should ultimately be recycled, composted, or landfilled.
But in the real world, where litter and marine debris are big problems, biodegradable plastics are also going to find their way into the waste stream, the recycling stream, and into the environment.
Since the "best way" to dispose of them isn't an option for most consumers, what does that mean for the future of biodegradable plastics?
Comments (2)
'before you buy biodegradable plastics, make sure you can help them "go away" the right way.
As you say, of a consumer, that is one big ask.
Posted by Peter Martin | April 8, 2010 4:23 AM
Posted on April 8, 2010 04:23
Whoa there! As my parents used to say, hold your horses. M Jones assumes that "going away" is good, and Narayan is aware of different types of going away (burial, cremation, drowned at sea?).
But what's wrong with inert plastics? Do we hear an outcry against rocks, glass, aluminum in our garbage?
We know by now, of course, that the public thinks there is something chemically bad in plastics, and they want them to go away. Really go away, forever. They want it both ways, complaining that they will last forever, and also leach out harmful chemicals if put in a landfill. This is logical if you base it on the illogical conclusion that plastics are bad and must be gotten rid of SOMEHOW.
It's this plastophobia, a subset of chemophobia, that is at the root of the public attitude toward plastics as a necessary evil, and until this root is analyzed, understood and removed, the plant will continue sprouting its plastophobic leaves and branches no matter what we say or do.
Last night I heard that the environmental groups got something like $250 million in contributions last year while our industry had trouble collecting $2 million. They said we have to plead our cause better, market our advantages, use social media, etc., but I said we also need to look at the fertile soil that led to the $250 million. Why is the public so predisposed to criticize plastics?
Now I ask why is our industry so reluctant (scared?) to deal with this root cause of our persecution? I think it is because we somehow sense that it attacks our "way of life" which is based on consumption and growth, and we don't have a viable and sustainable alternate life style. When I bring this up, I am reminded of the economy (which is equally based on this consumption-growth model), and asked what could be changed. I respond with my triumvirate of activities that use time with minimal consumption: gardening, fixing things and relating to people, but I'm aware, too, that even these things can be twisted into the old mold: pay more for seeds and garden equipment, elaborate shop equipment, and supporting relationships with material gifts.
Until we can see popular books entitled The Joy of Growing, The Joy of Fixing, and The Joy of Hugging, we will continue to worship the great gods of Dow Jones and Santa Claus.
Mother Jones, take note and wake up.
Posted by Allan Griff | April 8, 2010 11:57 AM
Posted on April 8, 2010 11:57