As editor of Plastics News, I scan scores of Web sites, emails and news releases daily, and stay in constant touch with our network of global staff reporters and correspondents -- the largest reporting team in the plastics industry. I distill the more interesting items into commentary for this blog. Plastics News, part of Crain Communications Inc., began publishing weekly news in 1989, and launched a bilingual China site in mid-2005. In 2007, Crain acquired the two leading English-language plastics publications in Europe - Plastics & Rubber Weekly and the monthly European Plastics News.
A controversial pro-plastics section has been removed from a proposed environmental curriculum in California, according to a report by California Watch.
Last year California Watch had reported that Gerald Lieberman, a private consultant hired by California school officials, added a new section to the 11th-grade teachers' edition textbook called "The Advantages of Plastic Shopping Bags," with the title and some of the textbook language inserted almost verbatim from letters written by the American Chemistry Council.
In the wake of that disclosure, the state Environmental Protection Agency took another look at the proposed curriculum, which is part of a statewide K-12 curriculum on the environment.
In a follow-up story posted last week, Suzanne Rust of California Watch reported that the curriculum has been rewritten.
The lesson (PDF) "no longer includes a section titled, 'The Advantages of Plastic Shopping Bags,' and it incorporates more recent and relevant recycling statistics," she wrote.
The story quotes Bryan Ehlers, Cal/EPA's assistant secretary for education and quality programs, who said: "We went back and looked at the whole unit and really picked through it with a fine-tooth comb."
"Our concern always with the curriculum was to ensure integrity and accuracy," Ehlers said.
In "Advantages of Plastic Shopping Bags" workbook section had asked students to list some advantages of plastic bags. The correct answer, according to the teachers' edition, was: "Plastic shopping bags are very convenient to use. They take less energy to manufacture than paper bags, cost less to transport and can be reused."
CNN's Jane Velez-Mitchell covered the debate over sustainability of PET water bottles yesterday, and while the report is worth a look, it also has some serious problems.
With a "Ban the Bottle" graphic looming in the background, Velez-Mitchell tells viewers that she has an ally -- none other than 84-year-old Jean Hill, who led the effort to ban single-serve PET water bottles in Concord, Mass. (See PN's April 26 story, "Concord, Mass., voters pass ban on PET water bottles ")
I enjoyed hearing what Hill has to say -- it's the first time I've seen her on camera. Her message is that the bottle ban in Concord is a big deal, and the media's coverage has been shallow.
She's absolutely right about that.
Velez-Mitchell is a little over-the-top, literally applauding Hill and saying "Thank you for leading the crusade against plastic bottles." But that's her opinion, so it's OK.
But then the story stumbles by using some discredited information.
Velez-Mitchell describes the garbage patch as "a giant mound of garbage ... bigger than Texas in the Pacific Ocean." That's hyperbole that's been discredited by ocean researchers.
She also cites a website (thinkoutsidethebin.com) that says plastic debris kills 100,000 marine animals a year. Remember that one? I wrote last year about how Harold Johnson, a Saco, Maine, journalist and author of "The Flotsam Diaries" blog, researched and discredited the oft-cited number.
Note to CNN: Interesting story, but don't believe everything you read on the internet.
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. has put a lot of muscle behind its sustainability campaign -- global plastics companies are well aware of the company's supplier scorecards.
There's only one mention of plastics in the report, and it's not critical. Wal-Mart's plastics recycling record is held up as an example of a project that the company wants environmentalists -- and the public -- to notice:
Walmart's sustainability campaign is not your typical corporate greenwash. It is more complex and clever than that. It has enough substance mixed in with the spin to draw you in. It's easy to get swept up in the big numbers Walmart can roll out -- like the 30 tons of plastic hangers it recycles every month -- and to be charmed by the very fact of this giant company, with its hard-nosed corporate culture, using a word like 'sustainability.'
More than a few environmentalists have been won over. With their endorsements and the flood of positive press that seems to follow each of Walmart's green announcements, the company has managed to turn around flagging poll numbers, shift its labor practices out of the limelight, and, most crucially, crank up its expansion machine.
ILSR takes the company to task for failing to take action on climate change, and falling fall short of a goal set seven years ago to use more renewable energy.
Some more materials-related items, potentially of interest to Plastics Blog readers:
The report criticizes Wal-Mart's sale of shoddy products, like $6.24 toasters and clothing that doesn't last.
It question's the company's Green Product Rankings, an "ambitious project" that "doesn't have much to show for itself."
The report says:
In the first year or two after its founding in July 2009, the Sustainability Consortium was closelipped about its progress. In the last few months, the consortium has finally said that it is not in fact developing a rating system or even product-specific information. It is assembling general lifecycle data for types of products - a typical environmental footprint for orange juice or detergent, say, but not for specific brands within those categories.
Spokesperson Jon Nicol says this data could be a starting point for a rating system should a company wish to develop one. So far, the consortium has finished just 10 assessments.23 A Walmart supercenter carries roughly 140,000 items across thousands of product types.
Was Walmart woefully naive about what it would take to create the kind of Sustainability Index it promised? Was it a miscalculation to have corporations play a big role in developing environmental standards for their own products? Should Walmart have put its efforts instead into refining and adapting an existing rating system, one not controlled by industry, such as GoodGuide? Was the index just a PR ploy from the start?
Jean Hill, the 84-year-old Concord, Mass., grandmother of six, is at it again -- trying to ban sales of single-serve plastic water bottles.
According to the Boston Herald, Concord residents will vote at an April 25 town meeting on a bylaw that would ban sales of bottled water in sizes of one liter or less, except in an emergency.
Concord is a historic town -- site of the first battle of the Revolutionary War. If the bylaw passes, it apparently would be the first of its kind in the United States.
This isn't Hill's first attempt to ban single-serve water bottles. Last year the town narrowly defeated her measure, by a 272-265 vote.
"I'm coming back next year. I'm 83 and I'm tough. I don't give up," Hill said at the time.
While local retailers are worried that they'll lose business to competitors in nearby towns, Hill says they have nothing to worry about.
"If the ban did pass -- and I'm quite optimistic that it will -- I believe that any loss of revenue would be ... more than made up if they sell Thermos bottles, refillable bottles," she told the Herald.
I'm not a big user of single-serve water bottles. I prefer tap water, at home and at work. And I acknowledge that the recycling rate for these containers is way too low -- Plastics News has editorially supported bottle deposit legislation for years.
That said, I think there's something wrong with allowing voters to decide which legal, safe and convenient products stores can sell.
If Hill wants to discourage residents from buying single-serve bottled water, I've got no problem with that. But making it illegal doesn't mesh with the concepts of freedom and liberty that are synonymous with the name Concord.
Add actress Kyra Sedgwick to the list of celebrities who are crusading against single-use plastics.
Last week Sedgwick, star of TV's "The Closer," moderated ""A Global Call to End Plastic Pollution" at the United Nations in New York.
Lisa Kaas Boyle, an environmental attorney, co-founder of the Plastic Pollution Coalition and a board chair at Heal the Bay, posted a blog item about the talk over the weekend on The Huffington Post.
"When I became aware that plastic trash like the disposable plastic water bottle would survive not only my lifetime but my children's and their children's lifetimes, I knew that we, as a society, had a major problem. When I learned that in developed countries like the U.S., we recycle at best around 30 percent of the plastic we use and that even then, we turn the plastic into relatively useless items like plastic ashtrays, I became obsessed with the waste. I can be thrown into a severe anxiety attack at my neighborhood spinning class as I see mothers whom I know to be intelligent responsible parents go through a jumbo size water and then throw it 'away.'
There is no 'away,' and much of the plastic packaging we use could end up in one of the five Gyres -- swirling areas of the world's ocean current where trash is concentrated. Plastic pollution kills and injures wildlife. Tiny plastic pellets in the water absorb toxins, and studies are now being done to learn whether it is poisoning fish, which is globally the most important source of protein for humans.
I have done my best to alter my lifestyle to help solve this problem; avoiding plastic whenever possible and spread the word about its damaging effects. But I can only do so much. This is where the government must step in. There is a real solution that can be implemented now.
Who's Emily Utter? She's an anti-plastics activist who helped pass a ban on plastic bags in San Francisco, and now she's working to help other cities and towns do the same.
Utter is making "huge progress ... in spite of the plastic and chemical industries millions of dollars and best efforts," according to a Q&A interview with her that's making the rounds in environmental blogs.
The interview has a David vs. Goliath tone, which is understandable given the subject matter.
To help balance that, I'll mention here that the U.S. plastics industry traditionally doesn't rank all that high on lists of most influential trade groups.
Also, let's assume that the plastics industry is correct -- how would you expect it to respond to numerous efforts across the country to ban or tax legal products? It's one thing to urge consumers to use less plastic, and quite another to make them illegal.
Here are a few snippets from the interview:
How would I go about getting a plastic bag ban in my town?
If it is just an individual that wants to get involved I always recommend people look for other groups in their area that are either interested in doing it or are currently doing something about the plastic bag problem - a Sierra Club Chapter, a Surfrider chapter or an environmental club are good places to start. Once people do the research they often find there are already groups in their area working on the plastic bag issue.
Then, once a group has formed they should check out the city council to determine the environmental leader within the council that would sponsor plastic bag ban or fee legislation and set up a meeting to see if the council person identified is interested in sponsoring legislation.
Are there are general challenges that everyone is facing regardless of town size or structure in passing plastic bag legislation?
The plastic industry. They are extremely well funded and they will send their representatives all over the country to fight the legislation.
How are people overcoming the challenges the plastic industry is creating?
Perseverance. We see the impact of plastic on our health and on our environment. There is a lot passion and understanding about this issue now. We see the plastic bags in our neighborhoods, in our parks and on our beaches. People know there are practical and easy ways to take care of this problem. We have seen this in Europe for years and now the US is finally starting to catch up. With all of the global examples, we are also seeing global momentum for this issue. It gives us the mental support to keep at it. It is not like we are proposing something totally out of the blue. Everything we are proposing is practical and it has a really obvious impact that we can see immediately.
It seems like the plastic industry would be kind of scary, especially to little towns.
I think for some of the smaller towns the plastics industry just kind of says, 'We are not going to bother.' They are focused on bigger targets and being strategic about it. Everyone looks to California for environmental legislation and the plastic industry is really trying to battle us here. Given the focus on suing California cities, some of the non-Californian cities have had an easier time because all of the plastic industry resources are going to California. I think if Denver brought the plastic bag issue up again you would see the plastic industry bringing in the big guns again. I know Chicago is starting to work on legislation and we will see the plastic industry come out in force. This is also why the plastic industry shows up to the smaller towns outside of Chicago because they see when a smaller town outside of a bigger city does it it spurs other cities around them to do it.
On top of the rest of the plastics industry's marine litter problems, get ready for a new twist. Experts say debris from last year's tsunami that devastated parts of Japan are headed for the West Coast of the United States and Canada.
The experts say the debris will hit North American beaches later this year or in early 2013.
And given the nature of marine trash, the most visible products are going to be plastic.
I've heard people argue that marine litter is an education problem, not a plastics problems. But this tsunami debris is pretty clear proof that the issue isn't quite so black and white.
We're not talking about people intentionally failing to dispose of or recycle their plastic trash -- this was unavoidable.
Unless the industry gets out in front of this issue, it's got the potential to be a black eye.
A few months ago I wrote about the potential for viewers to take away an anti-plastics message from "The Lorax," a Dr. Seuss-inspired film that opened today.
Upon further review, I think the American Chemistry Council's response is more on target.
ACC knew the film was coming, so it prepared a website designed to capture kids' enthusiasm for the film and its central message around making a difference.
ACC's "Plastics and the Lorax" isn't about fighting back against anti-plastics stereotypes (you may recall that the film's protaganist lives in "Thneedville," a town made of plastic).
Instead, ACC is focused on how kids can help recycle more plastic. The site educates visitors about what plastics can be recycled and how they are used.
ACC's Jennifer Killinger, the senior director of sustainability and public outreach, says the site went live yesterday. ACC is taking a low-key approach to the film -- after all, the audience is children.
The intent of the site is to promote recycling and give them simple tips to get more plastics in the bin.\
But ACC's not picking a fight with Dr. Suess -- which seems like the right approach.
Have you noticed any of the new package recycling labels?
Some manufacturers are voluntarily using the labels in an effort to make recycling easier. One of the biggest problems with the status quo labels is related to plastics -- specifically, complaints from consumers and recyclers who say many people don't understand the chasing arrows resin ID codes.
Today, thanks to a tweet from the American Chemistry Council's "Recycle Plastic" feed, I found a handy website that's supposed to help the public navigate the new labels.
The labels are being called "How 2 Recycle Labels," and the site is www.how2recycle.info.
Check it out for more information, and to better understand exactly what the labels mean.
Meanwhile, to help you recognize them when you see them, here's an example of one of the new labels:
I've described the proliferation of bag bans and taxes around the country -- indeed around the world -- like a Whac-a-Mole game.
For the industry, they're always popping up in different places, always requiring an urgent response.
For a while, all the action was in California. Now we've got bans and taxes on both coasts, and proposals in Texas, Ohio, Illinois -- just about everywhere.
Wondering how to keep up? There are several websites devoted to plastic bag laws. One I rediscovered this morning, thanks to Susan Freinkel's blog, is called plasticbaglaws.org.
Jennie Roemer, a San Francisco Bay-area lawyer, started the site as a resource for her own research, writes Freinkel, author of "Plastic: A Toxic Love Story."
In addition to keeping up with bag bans and taxes, the site also includes a links section with descriptions of all the sites.
Here's a good link for all the environmentalists in the plastics industry -- as well as those who realize that it's in the industry's best interest to irmprove its recycling record.
Today the American Chemistry Council sent a link to RecycleYourPlastics.org, a web site created to help communities recycle more plastics.
The portal includes information on different types of plastics, recent news releases recycling rates for film, containers and non-container rigid plastics.
It also includes tips, tools, best practices, case studies, and a section where readers can submit questions to experts.
The new report on plastic film and bag recycling is encouraging, but it's not going to end the debate on grocery bag taxes and bans.
Plastics News' Mike Verespej reported today that film and bag recycling in the United States jumped 14 percent in 2010 to 971.8 million pounds -- the first annual increase of more than 3 percent since 2006.
But Mark Murray, executive director of the Sacramento, Calif.-based Californians Against Waste, still feels that bag recycling has been a "failure."
Today our sister publication Waste & Recycling News posted a column by H. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow at NCPA, arguing that plastic bag bans hold hidden costs, and result in "little or no benefit for the environment."
"Contrary to the myth propagated by environmental lobbyists and other plastic bag opponents, plastic bags are rarely single-use items," Burnett wrotes. "Rather, long after plastic bags transport the groceries, people find a variety of ways to reuse them. They are used as lunch bags, car litter bags, to line bathroom trash bins, to collect dog waste and to seal soiled diapers. Other uses include carrying donation items to goodwill, transporting laundry to the cleaners and securing items in the garage and attic. Some people carry bags on walks to pick up stray trash.
"Without them, we will likely buy more trash bags and baggies to compensate. In stores that ban plastic grocery bags, shoppers have become creative, using thin plastic bags from the fresh vegetable sections of stores to carry out groceries -- double- and triple-lining them to make them work. Now that´s a waste nightmare and a sheer waste of resources."
How appropriate -- a day after the Super Bowl, Forbes.com has a Q&A interview today with the "other" Tom Brady -- you know, the plastics guy.
Of course I'm talking about Tom Brady, the founder of Plastic Technologies Inc., the packaging and recycling specialists in Holland, Ohio.
Gregg Fairbrothers interviewed Brady for a Forbes section on leadership. The interview covers his background at Owens-Illinois Inc., including his role in the company's efforts to commercialize PET containers, plus insight into his decision to leave the company and form PTI.
"Like many entrepreneurs, I began as a company of one person. I was Chairman, CEO, President, Chief Engineer, and Customer Service Manager; I was also the accountant and the janitor," Brady told Fairbrothers.
"The PTI family of companies now includes two manufacturing companies, two technical development and engineering service companies and three joint venture companies that license technology or sell specialty services to the packaging industry. We have more than 200 employees worldwide and many of the products you buy every day are sold in plastic containers designed by one of our companies.
"Interestingly, all of the other PTI companies were the "brainchildren" of PTI employees. Today we remain a private, employee-owned company and only a handful of professional employees have left us over our 26-year history," he said.
Check out the link for the full interview. Unlike that other Tom Brady, this one should be feeling pretty good about his team's performance today.
On top of the Forbes interview, I discovered just minutes after I posted this today that Brady is a new member of the Plastics Hall of Fame. He's one of 10 new inductees who will join the hall on April 1 at NPE2012 in Orlando, Fla.)
Here's the full list:
Thomas E. Brady, PhD. A pioneer of today's PET industry, Dr. Brady did fundamental research on polymer and packaging technology, founded Plastic Technologies, Inc. (PTI) and six other packaging-related companies, and received patents relating to PET and packaging.
Lawrence J. Broutman, ScD. A prolific researcher, Dr, Broutman has developed techniques for the analysis and characterization of polymer materials that have spurred further research and generated innovation in many plastics sectors. He has written nearly 170 technical publications and two textbooks, been awarded four patents, and received five best paper honors from the Society of Plastics Engineers (SPE).
Jay L. Gardiner. A tireless volunteer for plastics causes, Mr. Gardiner has been continuously active in service to the industry for more than two decades and has held leadership positions or board memberships with many plastics organizations.
Jobst U. Gellert. One of the most prolific inventors in Canadian history, Mr. Gellert has been awarded hundreds of patents. He patented the first commercially viable hot runner system in 1965 and built Mold-Masters Limited, a leading worldwide supplier of hot runner systems.
H. Gunther Hoyt. Mr. Hoyt has played important roles in the internationalization of the plastics industry and in the progress of SPI and the NPE exposition. He has also been a technological leader in the field of machine components.
Robert P. Kittredge. An entrepreneur and philanthropist, Mr. Kittredge founded Fabri-Kal Corp. in 1950. It is now the eighth-largest thermoformer in North America, serving the packaging market. Mr. Kittredge also established the Fabri-Kal Foundation, which has provided millions of dollars in scholarships and community grants.
H. Richard Landis. An inventor and entrepreneur, Mr. Landis has been a pioneer in injection molding. His company, Landis Plastics, grew from a one-machine operation in 1956 to an enterprise with six U.S. locations employing more than 2,100 people. He has been awarded 16 patents in the design of plastic parts. He participated in SPI's development of the resin identification code for the "chasing-arrow" recycling symbol.
Robert A. Malloy, PhD. An educator, researcher, and author, Dr. Malloy chairs one of the leading U.S. plastics engineering departments and has trained many engineers who have gone on to make an impact on the industry. He holds 16 patents, has been a principle investigator for more than 70 funded research projects, and has authored or co-authored more than 60 conference and journal papers in the field of plastics engineering.
Daniel W. McGuire, Jr. Dubbed "the father of resin distribution," Mr. McGuire founded the first plastics distributor in North America. His vision was to create an organization to fill in the gap between resin producers and small or medium-size processors. This became the mission of his company, General Polymers.
Timothy W. Womer. A widely recognized authority on plasticizing screws, Mr. Womer has designed thousands of these components. He holds 15 patents and is a prolific author and lecturer. He has been extensively involved with industry associations, held a number of leadership positions, and received several of the industry's most prestigious honors.
What will the ADM-Metabolix divorce mean to bioplastics?
The future of bioplastics is a little fuzzier today, following Archer Daniels Midland Co.'s decision to drop out of its alliance polyhydroxyalkanoate resin company Metabolix Inc.
I included some insight into the news in the story posted on PlasticsNews.com last night:
Metabolix reported a loss of $29.2 milliion for the nine month period that ended Sept. 30, on sales of $567,000. ADM considered the business one that was "not delivering sufficient results now," and it was "not expected to deliver sufficient results within a reasonable timeframe."
Despite the steady news coverage of biopolymers in recent months -- remember Coke's commitment to using more bio-based resins? -- I differentiated the activity in making conventional resins made from plant materials vs. making corn-based polymers like PHA.
This morning I asked PN's two authorites on plant-based polymers, Frank Esposito and Mike Verespej, for their thoughts on the news. Here are some of our additional observations:
Metabolix and ADM started production of their Telles-brand PHA last year at a 110-million-pound-per-year plant in Clinton, Iowa. Typically that's the point where a resin takes a big step forward, when high-volume production brings down prices.
But PHA is still substantially more expensive than polylactic acid -- its main competition in plant-based resin. And lower prices for conventional plastics like polyethylene and polypropylene hurt prospects for bio-based materials, too.
Metabolix's stock price has fallen more than 40 percent today, to about $2.60 per share, following ADM's announcement.
Metabolix said it is conducting a strategic review of its business plans for 2012, and that it will restructure its bioplastics business and downsize its operations. CEO Richard Eno said the company is still "committed to successfully commercializing PHA bioplastics."
Going forward without ADM will require a major change in strategy, though.
Recyclability is the only answer. Unfortunately although recycling packaging makes sense, in many cases the infrastructure isn't in place to make it a widespread practice. Consumers have to want to recycle too. In many cases it's simply too much trouble to save and dispose of in a recycling facility. Another quandary, washing out containers to recycle (you are using energy and water so where's the eco win?)
All plastic packaging is bad. Not true. There are so many new compounds and formulations that have been introduced. Companies are seriously looking at ways to not only reduce the amount of plastic used but alternative methods for disposal and reuse. I might mention here too that in many cases the eco plastic alternatives use more energy to manufacture and have disposal issues of their own.
Author describes challenges of living in a plasticized world
Journalist and author Harold Johnson has posted a column on the perils of plastics pollution that's worth a look, even for readers who are unapologetically pro-plastics.
You may remember Johnson -- he's the writer who researched and debunked the oft-cited statistic that plastic debris kills 100,000 marine animals a year.
He's also author of The Flotsam Diaries blog, where he records all the trash he picks up on a quiet beach in Saco, Maine..
Johnson's latest column appeared in The Portland Press Herald's "Maine Voices" section,
The headline: "In Maine and around the world, oceans, shores filling with plastic." Obviously he's not a big fan of single-use disposable plastics.
"We have filled our households and our lives with stuff we use for a month or a day or five minutes, but which persists for a dozen lifetimes," he writes. "The average American goes through 220 pounds of plastic a year."
He anticipates the argument that plastic pollution is a result of improper disposal, saying: "Garbage has always escaped from the waste stream. (Not to mention from windstorms, floods and worse disasters.) It always will. Despite our best efforts. Now that most garbage is plastic, every escapee adds to the persistent fouling of our shores and waters."
Johnson has a point. Remember the dramatic video footage of the tsunami striking Japan last year, sweeping away everything in sight?
Plastic pollution is already a serious problem -- Johnson knows from his own beach clean-up routine, and he also cites Columbia University research that estimates at least 73 million pounds of plastic now floats in the world's oceans.
Johnson's solution to the problem is simple -- he's an advocate of the philosophy that I'll call "use less stuff."
"Plastics certainly have their benefits and their place. But our gross overuse of them has polluted nearly every last pristine, remote place left in the world, as well as our own backyard. It's time to change the game," he writes.
Could there be another solution? Truly biodegradable plastics could help, although I don't expect them to be more than niche materials for the foreseeable future.
And I believe stepped up efforts to recycle single-use plastics can help. In the United States, at least, there's a lot of room for improvement in recycling nearly all plastic products. As Johnson notes, that wouldn't completely put a stop to the plastics litter problem.
Here's a fun plastics-related headline: the Occupy Seattle movement is banning plastic sporks (and paper plates) from their encampment's food service.
The news comes from Real Change, a Seattle, Wash., organization focused on providing opportunity and a voice for low-income and homeless people and taking action for economic justice.
They may not be clean, but they're green. Faced with criticism for alleged violence, drug use, and an insufficient political agenda, organizers of the leaderless movement known as Occupy Seattle are touting the "sustainability" of their Seattle Central Community College encampment.
Residents have banned plastic cutlery and paper plates from the encampment's meal service as part of a sustainability initiative, the campers said in a statement.
If they're going to be using traditonal metal forks and spoons, let's hope the encampment is clean, and not just green. No need to invite food poisoning to the Occupy movement.
Too bad they couldn't have found someone willing to recycle those used sporks.
In case you haven't been paying attention, not everyone thinks plastic bag bans are a bad thing.
Last week, Greenbiz.com senior editor Marc Gunther wrote a post in defense of plastic bags. Today, Stiv Wilson offers a counterpoint, "In Defense of Plastic Bag Bans."
Wilson works for the 5 Gyres Institute, which is focused on plastic pollution. Close readers of Plastics News will also remember his name for the petition he started on change.org to encourage the National Park Service to ban single-use water bottles from at the Grand Canyon.
It's clear that both Wilson and Gunther have a strong grasp of the issues related to plastic bags -- yet they come to opposite conclusions.
To Wilson, the bottom line is that plastic does not biodegrade.
What's at issue is this: Plastic does not biodegrade in a meaningful if even comprehensible timeframe. Thus, some portion of it accumulates in the environment. The more we produce, consume, and recycle plastics, the more plastic will come into the world and accumulate in landfills, on land, in rivers, and the sea. Plastics at sea concentrate incredibly dangerous chemicals, fish eat plastic, and we eat fish.
It's really that simple. This is why we care. It sure as hell isn't for the paycheck.
But wait -- is biodegradability a good thing? We've heard from recyclers concerned that increasing use of biodegradable plastics and additives would hurt their business.
Wilson points out that -- at least when it comes to plastic bags -- recycling isn't an issue. He estimates that the recycling rate for single-use plastic bags is about 1 percent.
That figure might be low -- Plastics News estimated the bag recycling rate at 2 percent in 2008, and it's likely to have grown since then. But that's not a record to crow about. So what we've seen the past few years is instead of running on its record of bag recycling, the industry has been forced to respond to bans by talking about the potential to recycle more bags.
Wilson knows that, and writes: "That plastics bags are 100 percent recyclable isn't the issue. It's that by a massive percentage they are not recycled. ... Furthermore, why are we investing in a system that has to fabricate bag recycling rates to trend positively, even though the fabricated trend still amounts for next to nothing? What society accepts a 4.3 percent efficacy rate in any system without abandoning it and going back to the drawing board?"
Wilson's post won't be the last word -- but it's required reading for anyone interested in the bag ban debate.
Care to guess the topic of the most-read story on PlasticsNews.com in 2011? Was it about resin pricing? A major industry acquisition? A hot trend like sustainability?
Take a guess -- I'll give the answer later in this column. But first, let's look at the biggest Plastics News stories from the second half of 2011, measured by web traffic.
Again, these are only the stories posted after July 1. Let's look at the top 25:
Braskem buying Dow's PP business Brazilian plastics giant Braskem SA made another big move in the polypropylene market in 2011, this time acquiring the PP business of Dow Chemical Co. for $323 million.
Prices fall for PP, PE, PVC, PS and ABS This story from early November reported that commodity resin prices were tumbling, with polypropylene experiencing the steepest drop -- a 14-cent dive since Oct. 1.
Neil Kruschke Jr., former Stopol owner and CEO, dies in chainsaw accident PN was the first to report the sad news that Neil Kruschke Jr., former owner and CEO of plastics equipment dealer Stopol Inc. and its auction business, Stopol Auctions LLC, had died in a tragic accident on Aug. 26 at age 44.
Sabic's Charlie Crew retiring, DuPont's Keith Smith on board In the afternoon of Nov. 23, just before the Thanksgiving holiday, Sabic Innovative Plastics announced that long-time executive Charlie Crew would retire on Jan. 1, and that he would be replaced by Keith J. Smith, most recently DuPont Co.'s vice president for sourcing and logistics.
China's new regulation shakes up plastic recycling industry In November we reported that plastics scrap imports through China's Guangzhou customs fell by more than 80 percent in the past two months, as the local customs stepped up enforcement of a new regulation on solid waste imports.
Markets shift, struggles persist Resin supply and demand is in the spotlight again -- this time it's our annual report on the outlook for commodity materials.
Kraft pushes innovation, sustainability How does Perfecto Perales, senior director of packaging research for Kraft Foods Inc., feel about the sustainability of plastics packaging? Not surprisingly, a lot of you wanted to know.
Fortis closing Fort Smith, Ark., plant This was our first story that hinted at problems at Fortis Plastics LLC. Within a matter of weeks, most of the company had shut down.
Dow ramping up molding of solar shingles We've been writing about Dow Chemical Co.'s foray into solar shingles since 2008. Quite a few Plastics News readers are paying close attention.
Phillips Sumika closing Texas PP plant As polypropylene prices fell in the second half of 2011, this supplier reacted to the news by shutting down capacity.
Fortis Plastics to auction off equipment The New Year will bring a giant auction -- more than 130 injection presses and 20 extruders -- from four closed-down plants of Fortis Plastics LLC.
Our coverage of the problems at the Coke joint venture recycling plant in Spartanburg, S.C., generated big reader traffic in the first half of this year.
A voice in defense of plastic bags -- but is it too late?
Marc Gunther, senior writer for GreenBiz.com, posted a long defense of plastic bags on his website today. But judging by other headlines in recent weeks, I wonder if anyone will pay attention.
Plastic bag litter is not as bad as some critics have implied.
Recycling is a viable alternative to bans.
He concludes: "The truth is, we don't really have a clear answer to the age-old question of 'paper or plastic,' now amended to say 'paper, plastic or reusable?' Too many variables are at play.
"My own answer? I carry several reusable bags in the trunk of my (hybrid) car and bring them into the grocery store when I remember. When I don't, I take plastic and bring it back to be recycled. I don't feel bad about that. Neither should you," Gunther wrote.
But is it too late for debate and reasoned arguments? Recent headlines suggest to me that the pace of bag bans and taxes will accelerate in 2012.
Seattle passed a bag ban on Dec. 19. The law may face a challenge -- although Seattle Times columnist Danny Westneat thinks that's unlikely. He opposed Seattle's previous effort to tax bags, but he says this attempt is "reasonable."
Hawaii's Big Island also approved a bag ban -- that news came yesterday. Mayor Billy Kenoi could still veto the bill. But there's momentum for eventual approval of a bag ban or tax that would cover all of Hawaii.
For more background on the plastics industry's strategy for fighting bag bans, check Plastics News staff reporter Mike Verespej's recent story.
He explains how the Society of the Plastics Industry is taking charge of fighting local efforts to tax or ban plastic bags, while the American Chemistry Council is putting its muscle behind an effort to improve film and bag recycling.
It seems like a reasonable plan. But the question remains, is it too late?
Some thoughts on Coke's leadership on bio-based resin
Coca-Cola Co. is taking a leading role in advancing bio-based plastics. That's been obvious for about two years, since the company introduced PET bottles made, in part, from renewable monoethylene glycol.
Now the company is working on the next step, to make large quantities of its bottles from 100 percent plant-based plastics.
Plastics News' staff reporter Mike Verespej reported yesterday how Coke is making multi-million dollar investments in three bio-based companies: Virent Inc., Gevo Inc. and Avantium Research and Technology.
Mike's story was one of the first on the announcement, but more importantly it was probably the most thorough. That's because he was already quite familiar with all three of Coke's new partners and the technology that they bring to the table.
Mike wrote in detail about Virent and Gevo earlier this year. I encourage PN readers who are interested in more information about bio-based plastics to re-read that story: "Cost, viability will determine bio-winners."
Coke is making a big push into bio-based materials this year. The company has said it expects to convert all of its PET packaging to PlantBottle materials -- made from sugar-cane ethanol -- by 2020.
We could be headed for a debate on the merits of recycled vs. bio-based content in plastics packaging. If so, there will be winners and losers -- and I doubt Coke will be on the losing side.
I got some criticism from readers for that comment. And it may be that Coke will stay committed to both goals: using more recycled content and using bio-based plastics.
But I feel it's still worth watching.
Finally, let me highlight a comment from Mike's story yesterday. He wrote that Rick Frazier, Coke's vice president of commercial bottle supply, said moving to bottles made entirely from plants is imperative because of Coke's goal is to double the daily serving from Coca-Cola beverages to 3 billion by 2020.
"To double our business in a sustainable way, we must find a new way to do more with less," he said.
At the risk of repeating myself: Coke has some big goals that are related directly to plastics packaging. This is a company that looks further ahead than most OEMs.
I would argue that even companies that don't supply Coke -- even companies that aren't in the packaging sector -- are going to be impacted by this decision.
Scrap theft is serious problem, and I've written about plastics companies that have been victims. But here's a twist -- an application for plastics that can benefit from the trend.
The Western Daily Press in Somerset, England, writes today about a community's plan to buy plastic manhole covers, after a rash of thefts in the past year.
According to the report, 19 wrought iron manhole and drain covers were stolen in a single 48-hour stretch in March.
The plastic covers cost about 400 pounds sterling each ($630) and last for around 15 years, according to the story. The metal covers cost around 110 pounds sterling ($172) and last about five years.
Interesting that the newspaper blames the thefts on "unscrupulous [scrap] dealers in the Far East." They may be the customers, but they're not the ones doing the heavy lifting in Somerset.
Remember the story about the antique cannon that was stolen from a Michigan plastics fabricator? Good news: it's been recovered.
Edston Plastic Co. in Romulus, Mich., was making a plastic replica of the cannon to be used as a donation container at a museum, but it was stolen in November, probably by thieves who expected to sell the 225-pound bronze item for scrap,
According to the Detroit Free Press, Detroit police found the cannon on Tuesday after receiving a tip about its whereabouts.
And I was waiting for it to show up on Pawn Stars.
Hewlett-Packard Co., leads Greenpeace International's new list of electronics companies ranked by energy usage, green products and sustainable operations.
Jeremy Carroll, a colleague at Waste & Recycling News, wrote about the report today. He notes new criteria this year also challenged the companies to reduce their carbon footprint in manufacturing, in their supply chain and through the end-of-life phase for their products.
Here are some materials-related highlights, directly from the Greenpeace reports. In addition to the details about phasing out certain materials, processors may note that Greenpeace now is looking favorably about companies that are using post-consumer plastics.
"[HP] scores the least points in the Products category; although it scores comparatively well for its progress on phasing out the use of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic and brominated flame retardants (BFRs) from its product range and is on track to achieve 90 percent of its new goal to phase out BFR and PVC in newly introduced personal computing products in 2011. HP needs to report on the amount of post-consumer plastics it uses as a percentage of all plastics and publicly disclose the length of warranty and spare parts availability for its main product lines, as well as show more innovations to extend product life. HP does not provide a summary of the energy efficiency of its products by giving
a percentage of its products that meet the latest Energy Star standards (or other relevant international standard for external power systems); this should be published on its
website, for each product range. However, HP risks a penalty point in future Guide editions as it is a member of trade associations that have commented against stringent
energy efficiency standards; it needs to distance itself from such regressive positions with a strong statement."
"Dell scores poorly on all the other Products criteria. Although it reports on the quantities of post-consumer recycled plastics used, this is not given as a percentage
of total plastics use and there is no target and timeline for increasing its use. Dell needs to publicly disclose the length of warranty and spare parts availability for its main product
lines in order to score any points for extending its products life cycle. Dell does not provide figures on the percentage of its products that meet and exceed the latest Energy Star
standard, although it offers tools for users to optimise energy efficiency. Dell also risks a penalty point in future Guide editions as it is a member of trade associations that
have commented against stringent energy efficiency standards; it needs to distance itself from such regressive positions with a strong statement."
"On Products [Nokia] scores no points for the use of recycled plastics; although it now reports that the Nokia 700 is its first smartphone to use recycled plastics which make up 33 percent of the plastics used, it needs to expand its use further and report total use as a percentage of all plastics used in order to score points. To score on the products life cycle criteria it needs to publicly disclose the length of warranty and spare parts availability for its main product lines. It scores close to maximum points on the new criteria for hazardous substances in products, with all of its products free from almost all the specified hazardous substances, missing the target because it does not include all antimony compounds in its restrictions on hazardous substances. It continues to score maximum points for the energy efficiency of its products; it has achieved its target of reducing no-load power used by its chargers by 50 percent from 2006 to 2010 and has set a new target of 75 percent by 2012. However, Nokia risks a penalty point in future Guide editions as it is a member of trade associations that have commented against stringent energy efficiency standards; it needs to distance itself from such regressive positions with a strong statement."
"[Apple] continues to score well on the Products criteria; all Apple products are now free of PVC vinyl plastic and brominated flame retardants (BFRs), with the exception of PVC free power cords in countries where their safety certification process is still ongoing; however, it does not mention plans to phase out antimony or beryllium. Apple scores a point for its information on battery life for the product life cycle criterion, but it needs to publicly disclose the length of warranty and spare parts availability for its main product lines. It provides no information on its use of post-consumer recycled plastics. It gets maximum points for reporting that all of its products meet or exceed the latest Energy
Star standards for energy efficiency, however, it risks a penalty point in future Guide editions as it is a member of a trade association that has commented against stringent
energy efficiency standards; it needs to distance itself from such regressive positions with a strong statement."
"On Products [Philips] has brought a number of product ranges onto the market that are free from polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic and brominated flame retardants (BFRs), as well as six phthalates and antimony, to add to the industry's first PVC/BFR free TV, the Econova LED TV, as part of its commitment for all new products to be free from these substances from 2011. It needs to commit to phase out exempted uses of beryllium and all phthalates. Philips has a target to double its use of recycled plastics by 2015, but needs to specify if this is post-consumer recycled plastics; it also needs to report the percentage of post-consumer plastics it uses currently. To score points on the product life cycle criteria Philips needs to publicly disclose the length of warranty and spare parts availability for their main product lines. It also has targets to increase the energy efficiency
of its products but needs to update its information on the percentage of its products that meet and exceed the Energy Star standards. Philips risks a penalty point in future
Guide editions as it is a member of a trade association that has commented against stringent energy efficiency standards; it needs to distance itself from such regressive
positions with a strong statement."
"Sony Ericsson takes 6th place in the re-launched Guide. It is one of the top scorers in the Products category, scoring maximum points for the energy efficiency of its
phones, its advice to users and its targets to increase their efficiency. It is close to scoring maximum points for its avoidance of hazardous substances in its products, with only a few exemptions for uses of antimony and some types of phthalates remaining. It reports the recycled plastics content for several of its phones but still needs to report the amount of recycled plastic sourced as a percentage of all plastics used. To score on the product life cycle category it needs to publicly disclose the length of warranty and spare parts availability for its main product lines."
"Samsung takes 7th position in the re-launched Guide. The penalty point which was first imposed in v.14 of the Guide for backtracking on its commitment to eliminate
brominated flame retardants (BFRs) in new models of all products by January 2010 and PVC vinyl plastic by end of 2010 has been lifted. It now has notebooks, mobile phones
and MP3 players that are free from these substances, but its commitment to phase out hazardous substances now only covers some product groups - TVs and household
appliances are no longer included. Samsung does reasonably well on other Products criteria - it is one of the leaders on the new product life cycle criteria for providing
information on its warranties and provision of spare parts as well as details of innovations. Samsung also scores well for the energy efficiency of its products, but it risks a penalty point in future Guide editions as it is a member of a trade association that has commented against stringent energy efficiency standards; it needs to distance itself from such regressive positions with a strong statement."
"Lenovo takes 8th place in the re-launch of the Guide; it benefits from the removal of the penalty point that was imposed for backtracking on its commitment to eliminate PVC vinyl plastic and brominated flame retardants (BFRs) in all its products by the end of 2009. While its current goal for new products in 2011 to be PVC/BFR free has not been completely met, Lenovo has launched a number of PVC/BFR free products, including notebooks and a desktop and many components are PVC/BFR free. On other Products
criteria it scores well for its use of recycled plastics, where a slightly higher percentage of post-consumer plastics use would earn Lenovo maximum points. However, to score any points on product life cycle it needs to publicly disclose the length of warranty and spare parts availability for its main product lines. It reports on the percentage of products that meet and exceed the Energy Star standard, although this needs to be a higher percentage for more points. Lenovo risks a penalty point in future Guide editions as it is a member of a trade association that has commented against stringent energy efficiency standards; it needs to distance itself from such regressive positions with a strong statement."
"Panasonic is one of the top scorers on Products, scoring well for product life cycle as it provides information about its warranties and replacement parts, as well as many examples of innovation to make its products last longer. It has many products that are free from polyvinyl chloride plastic (PVC), and plans to eliminate PVC and brominated
flame retardants (BFRs) from its notebooks and mobile phones by the end of 2011, but this commitment does not extend to all of its products. It reports on its use of recycled plastics but does not specify whether this is post-consumer plastic. It scores maximum points for the energy efficiency of its products for reporting that 100 percent of its TVs meet the latest Energy Star standards and exceed the standby power requirement. However, it risks a penalty point in future Guide editions as it is a member of trade associations that have commented against stringent energy efficiency standards; it needs to distance itself from such regressive positions with a strong statement."
"Sony also risks a penalty point in future Guide editions as it is a member of trade associations that have commented against stringent energy efficiency standards; it needs to distance itself from such regressive positions with a strong statement. On Products its performance on the energy efficiency of its products earns top marks; all of its TVs meet or exceed the latest Energy Star standards. It uses comparatively high quantities of post-consumer recycled plastics but no longer provides information on its use of recycled plastics as a percentage of total plastics used. It is less impressive on the other products criteria; it scores no points on product life cycle as it does not report on the length of warranty and spare parts availability for its main product lines. Although it has phased out polyvinyl chloride plastic (PVC) from many of its products the scope of its phase out of brominated flame retardants (BFRs) is limited."
"[Sharp] scores most of its points on the Products criteria for the energy efficiency of its products, reporting that all of its TVs meet the latest Energy Star standard, with 90 percent of them exceeding the requirements for sleep mode. However, it risks a penalty point in future Guide editions as it is a member of a trade association that has commented against
stringent energy efficiency standards; it needs to distance itself from such regressive positions with a strong statement. Sharp has many products that are free from polyvinyl
chloride plastics (PVC) but its phase out of brominated flame retardants (BFRs) is mostly limited to casings and it has not met its commitment; it it needs to communicate the
dates when new products will be free of PVC, phthalates, BFRs and antimony. It reports on its use of recycled plastics but not as a percentage of total plastics used. Sharp provides some examples of extending product life cycle but does not publicly disclose the length of warranty and spare parts availability for its main product lines."
"Acer takes 12th position with a score of 2.9. ... However, it does report on the use of post- consumer recycled plastic in monitor casings of seven families of EPEAT Gold models. It has also launched many new models of products that are free from polyvinyl chloride plastic (PVC) and brominated flame retardants (BFRs) and it has informed Greenpeace that the majority of its products will be PVC/BFR free in the near future. A higher percentage of its products need to meet or exceed the latest Energy Star standards
in order for it to score more points on product energy efficiency."
"LGE scores 2.8 points and takes joint 13th place, together with Toshiba. It benefits from having a penalty point lifted, imposed for backtracking on its commitment to have all its products free of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic and brominated flame retardants (BFRs) by the end of 2010. All of LGE's mobile phones are now free from PVC and BFRs as well as phthalates, antimony trioxide and beryllium oxide; other products such as TVs and notebooks have many PVC/BFR free parts and LGE aims to phase these substances out
from TVs monitors and PCs by 2012 and household appliances by 2014. On other Products categories LGE scores best for its product energy efficiency; it regains points that it lost in the last edition by making a strong statement in support of more stringent Energy Star verification standards. LGE reports on the quantities of post-consumer plastics that it uses and gives an example of a product with recycled content, but does not have a target to increase its use of recycled plastics. It does not yet score on the product life cycle category, as there is no information on product warranties or replacement parts availability."
"Toshiba scores 2.8 points and takes joint 13th place, together with LGE. It also benefits from having its two penalty points lifted, which were imposed for backtracking on its commitment for all new consumer electronics products to be free of PVC vinyl plastic and brominated flame retardants (BFRs) by 1 April 2010 and for misleading its customers
and Greenpeace by not admitting that it would not meet its public commitment. It released a PC in March 2011 which is PVC and BFR free. It has also made a new commitment
to phase out PVC, BFRs, antimony and compounds, beryllium and compounds and phthalates by FY2015 from ALL its consumer products; the timeline is unreasonable, however, the fact that it covers all products and a range of hazardous substances is welcome. It also scores poorly on other Products criteria; it provides some information on extending product life but does not publish information on its warranties and availability of spare parts. The quantities of recycled plastics it uses have also gone down. It needs to report on the percentage of its products that meet and exceed Energy Star standards for each product range. However, it risks a penalty point as it is a member of a trade association
that has commented against stringent energy efficiency standards; it needs to distance itself from such regressive positions with a strong statement."
"RIM makes its first appearance in the Guide in last place, with 1.6 points. ... For Products it only scores points for the energy efficiency of its products, for reporting that its Blackberry charger gets the European Commission IPP 4-star rating, although it does not report on the energy efficiency of its chargers as a percentage of all its external power devices. It also risks a penalty point in future Guide editions as it is a member
of a trade association that has commented against stringent energy efficiency standards; it needs to distance itself from such regressive positions with a strong statement. For hazardous substances, RIM should set timelines to phase out their use in all of its products. It needs to publicly disclose the length of warranty and spare parts availability for its main product lines to score points on the product life cycle criteria."
Following up on their meeting and joint declaration on plastics and marine debris back in March, global plastics industry leaders met again in Dubai this week.
According to a news release put out by the American Chemistry Council's Plastics Division and PlasticsEurope, the group identified 100 projects in 32 countries that are aimed at addressing the issue.
The group is inviting assistance from other stakeholders.
"The global plastics industry is determined to do its part and to play a constructive role in building new partnerships to create solutions to the issue of marine litter," PlasticsEurope Executive Director Wilfried Haensel said in the release.
"Plastics makers from around the globe agree that our products don't belong in world's oceans," said Steve Russell, vice president of plastics for the American Chemistry Council. "And, plastics are valuable resources even after use. We look forward to doing our part and working with partners to implement solutions that keep more valuable plastics in productive use through improved stewardship and expanded infrastructure to grow recycling and energy recovery."
The plastics industry isn't standing in the way of recycling
The plastics industry is not an obstacle to recycling. But despite all the effort that many have put into recycling, that's not universally understood outside the industry.
I've been writing editorials for Plastics News pushing for expanding bottle deposit programs for almost 20 years.
In a 1994 column favoring a national deposit program, I wrote:
"Certainly this would appear to be a radical idea. But consider the benefits to the industry:
It would provide recyclers with a plentiful supply of clean, uncontaminated raw material.
"Supporting, rather than opposing, the legislation would provide a shot in the arm for the industry's environmental image.
"It would give a huge boost to the industry's recycling rate-which may be needed if plastics packaging is to reach its goal of recycling 25 percent of bottles and rigid containers by 1995."
It may surprise readers outside the plastics industry to learn that my column did not prompt an outcry from readers, or a slew of canceled subscriptions.
That's because, despite the reputation that plastics may have, your average plastics industry executive/ company owner/ worker is not opposed to recycling.
As I've written before, many actually consider themselves environmentalists. And the fact that they work in plastics doesn't present a moral dilemma. They know that plastics can help save energy and materials in many applications.
But her column seems to imply that plastics manufacturers are the obstacle.
"Consider single-use plastic water bottles," she writes. "Companies that manufacture the billions of plastic water bottles flooding the market claim the product is 'eco friendly' because the bottles are recyclable.
"In reality, only 12 percent of the 15 billion throwaway water bottles manufactured each year are being recycled. ... That being the case, manufacturers should make good on their claim that their bottles are recyclable by putting a deposit on the bottles to ensure they're returned to a recycling facility."
First -- and this is a relatively minor point -- the 2010 U.S. recycling rate for PET bottles was 29.1 percent. I think that's a more relevant number to cite than MacEachern's 12 percent number.
But the more important point is that her column may give readers the impression that plastic bottle manufacturers are opposed to plastics recycling. And that's just not true.
If anything, bottle manufacturers would like access to more high-quality recycled PET -- the kind that they could get from expanded bottle deposit programs.
And in the spirit of America Recycles Day, let me thank all the readers who diligently recycle all of their plastic containers -- whether or not they get a dime in the process.
According to the story, the fabricator was making a plastic replica of the cannon. The replica was going to be used as a donation container at a museum.
Ed Roberts, owner of Edston Plastic, said the burglars cleaned out his business, taking power tools and several 200-pound boxes of aluminum -- and the cannon.
The cannon's owner is offering a $1,000 reward -- about double the scrap value of the weapon, but significantly less than its actual value.
When raw material prices are high, I tend to see more stories about plastics companies being robbed of valuable commodities: steel tooling, copper piping, even plastic pallets.
Let's just hope the burglars in this case don't decide to use the cannon in their next armed robbery.
Is the CD about to go the way of 8-track tapes and disappear from music store shelves?
That's the word from music magazine Side Line. Its story, citing unnamed sources, says major music labels plan to eliminate music CDs by the end of 2012.
CDs would be replaced by downloads from iTunes and other music services. Only limited edition CDs would remain, and they would be sold primarily through Amazon.
"3 weeks ago we heard it for the first time and since then we have tried getting some feedback from EMI, Universal and Sony. All declined to comment," the story says.
Some readers seem pretty skeptical, but it's not completely unrealistic. As the story points out, CDs cost money to make, store, and recycle (when they go unsold). It must be tempting for music companies to believe they can eliminate all those costs.
According to Wikipedia, the first album to be released on CD was Billy Joel's 52nd Street, which was sold beginning Oct. 1, 1982, in Japan. CDs and CD players were released in the United States in eary 1983.
The term "polyester slacks" might be not seem exactly cool or modern, but recycled PET just might help to make something old-fashioned seem new again.
According to our sister publication Advertising Age, 85-year-old Haggar Clothing Co., is preparing to launch an ad campaign for "Life Khaki" pants, which are made in part from recycled PET.
Ad Agesays the company is hoping the eco-friendly pants "will give it cachet with a younger consumer."
Using recycled PET to make polyester fabric isn't exactly new. But I've noticed a few companies highlighting the recycled content of the fabric used to make graduation gowns and soccer uniforms.
OK, this isn't a high-volume application for recycled plastics, but it's still pretty cool.
Jim Griffioen, a stay-at-home Dad in the Detroit area, has blogged about making his son's Halloween costumes the past couple of years, and taken shots in appropriate run-down Detroit locations.
Last year's RoboCop was made from an old bike helmet, laundry detergent bottles and "a bunch of plastic crap," among other items. Check out the link, you'll love the photos (and captions) of the little guy visiting with some of Detroit's finest.
This year, he's "The Rocketeer", with a helmet made from an old BMX helmet, the lenses out of an old pair of sunglasses and a piece of acrylic, along with a rocket pack made from two-liter soda bottles.
Super creative stuff.
Thanks to Rhoda Miel, Plastics News' staff reporter in Detroit, for contributing this item today -- and have a Happy Halloween.
The town of Sioux Lookout in northwest Ontario is bucking a trend -- it just decided to reverse a ban on plastic bags.
Bryan Meadows of The Chronicle Journal in Thunder Bay, Ontario, reports today that the town council removed the 4-month-old ban on single-use plastic bags because of opposition from the community.
"We had a whole pile of petitions from business people and up to 400 names of private citizens" who opposed ban, Mayor Dennis Leney told the newspaper. "It was pretty unanimous that people were not happy with it."
The law had not been fully implemented -- it took effect this summer, but there was a one-year phase-in period.
Sioux Lookout had been the first municipality in Ontario to ban plastic bags, according to the report.
What's this -- a community rolling back a bag ban without a lawsuit? I'm not sure Plastics Blog readers in the United States will be able to relate to this story.
"For single-use bags, it is a double whammy: the pass-through cost from the retailers, as well as the cost of dealing with billions of discarded plastic bags in our landfills, sewers, gutters, parks, trees, rivers, beaches and oceans. We all pay for the estimated 1.2 billion to 2.3 billion (yes, billion) single-use plastic bags and 400 million paper bags used each year in the city, whether we know it or not," the column says.
I wonder about the accuracy of an estimate with such a wide range -- 1.2 billion to 2.3 billion. But that's not my problem with the column.
Take a look at this part:
The most pervasive argument against the ban of single-use bags is that doing so kills jobs at companies that produce plastic bags. That doesn't make sense when you consider reusable bags are often made from plastic. And shoppers won't stop needing bags to carry their purchases, though it's true they won't need as many.
In fact, some forward-thinking companies have already jumped on the opportunity to make reusable bags, creating jobs that didn't exist before. That includes the Van Nuys-based company, Green Bag America, which makes private-label reusable shopping bags for retailers.
So it's OK to kill jobs at companies that make one kind of plastic bags because there are other companies making other bags willing to step in and create jobs "that didn't exist before"?
That's a pretty big leap in logic.
My other example comes from The News-Herald in Willoughby, Ohio, which did a lengthy feature story on college campuses that are banning sales of single-serve water bottles.
My problem here is the focus on bottled water. I don't have concerns about drinking water from public fountains, I do it almost every day.
But I know many people avoid drinking fountains -- some for health and safety reasons, some for taste. If colleges ban bottled water, don't they end up encouraging people to buy less healthy alternative drinks? That's not their aim, but it's a logical result.
And aren't college campuses prime spots for recycling empty bottles?
I don't have a problem with policies that encourage people to use less stuff. That includes giving out fewer single-use bags at stores, and encouraging customers to use reusable bags, or to reuse and recycle single-use bags.
But making the leap from encouraging people to use less stuff and legally requiring it is a pretty big jump.
Plastics notes from Reckitt Benckiser's sustainability report
Reckitt Benckiser plc, known for its Clearasil, Lysol, Durex and Woolite brands, among others, released its 2010 sustainability report today. Here are some of the plastics-related highlights:
The company's very proud of that eliminated all the PVC packaging from its household products by the end of 2009. The step is highlighted in big blue letters on page 3 of the report (downloadable here), and on top of the company's news release.
It notes, however, that "Healthcare products are excluded from this target as no viable alternatives have yet been identified for some healthcare applications."
Under the category of "material use," the company notes several plastics-related innovations:
In 2010 a packaging redesign introduced an all-plastic trigger in the North American market. This will eliminate more than 198 metric tons of stainless steel a year. Since it is mainly polypropylene resin, it is also widely compatible with US recycling streams.
We have also made progress with 'light weighting' in North America, most notably on the Lysol Dual Action Wipes, Lysol Spray, and Lysol 32oz cleaners. This has avoided more than 290 metric tons of resin usage and reduced our carbon emissions by 920 metric tons.
Small savings can make a big impact In Europe we have changed the dosing scoop for Vanish powder from an injection moulded scoop to a thermoformed scoop. This change in manufacturing technology has reduced the weight by nearly 50% resulting in 153 tons of PP resin saved. As the thermoforming process requires much less energy than injection moulding this project also saved around 638 metric tons of CO2.
Actually, PP caps aren't widely recycled in the United States, although there's growing interest among recyclers and cap makers.
Americans are becoming much more confident with their knowledge about the environment, according to a new survey commissioned by SC Johnson.
That's despite the often confusing or even contradictory messages that they receive on many environmental issues, from global warming to the benefits of paper vs. plastic bags.
This poll isn't specifically about plastics, but I expect it will be studied carefully -- and quoted extensively -- in the coming year.
According to the survey, 73 percent of Americans say they know a lot or fair amount about environmental issues and problems. That's up 20 percentage points since 1995.
Also, fewer people now agree with the statement "I am very confused about what's good and what's bad for the environment." Just 18 percent agreed with that statement in 2011, down a whopping 21 percentage points since 1990.
A growing number of respondents say they've made lifestyle changes that have a positive environmental impact. For example, 58 percent said they recycle on a regular basis -- twice as many as 20 years ago -- and 29 percent said they buy "green" products.
Click here (PDF) for a copy of the full report, "The Environment: Public Attitudes and Individual Behavior -- A Twenty-Year Evolution."
Let's say you're on the city council of a coastal community where many residents are concerned about marine debris. Some of your constituents want to ban single-use plastic bags.
But if you pass a ban without first doing an expensive study on the environmental impact of the decision, you'll face a lawsuit -- and the prospect of an expensive legal battle.
That's the dilemma that communities in California face now, following the California Supreme Court's recent decision in the Manhattan Beach plastic bag lawsuit.
Last week, for example, the Save the Plastic Bag Coalition said it would ask the First District California Court of Appeal to overturn a bag ban in unincorporated areas of Marin County.
(Also, in a related move, yesterday Hilex Poly Co. LLC announced that it will be part of a lawsuit against the County of Los Angeles in response to a ban on plastic bags and a tax on paper bags.)
Now Huntington Beach is taking a slightly different approach. The community says it will look at a plastic bag ban. But it wants environmental groups to pay for the expensive study.
According to The Orange County Register, the Huntington Beach City Council voted 4-3 yesterday to pay Rincon Consulting nearly $30,000 to prepare an environmental impact report
The Surfrider Foundation has already given the city $3,000 for the study, and it plans to raise the rest of the money -- plus funding to copy and disseminate the report.
The newspaper quotes Surfrider Foundation member Bill Hickman: "Think of this as an investment, not a cost to the city. ... Recycling is not the answer for plastic bags. [Less than] 10 percent are recycled."
For a few years now, the Surfriders group has been a serious player in debates about plastics bags and litter, especially in California.
The decision to pay for Huntington Beach's environmental impact report will be an interesting test of how much support the group has, and whether its clout can eventually spread to other communities.
Dutch sculptor Theo Jansen works in an ususual medium: PVC pipe. But when you're creating giant kinetic creatures that appear to be alive, you use what works.
Jansen explains his work on his "Strandbeest" website:
Since 1990 I have been occupied creating new forms of life. Not pollen or seeds but plastic yellow tubes are used as the basic material of this new nature. I make skeletons that are able to walk on the wind, so that they don't have to eat. Over time, these skeletons have become increasingly better as surviving the elements such as storm and water and eventually I want to put these animals out in herds on the beaches, so they will live their own lives.
John Concannon, managing director of Tuam, Ireland-based plastics rotational molder, pipe extruder and recycler JFC Manufacturing Ltd., hasn't had a typical career as a manufacturing company entrepreneur.
Concannon became something of a celebrity in 1987 when he appeared on the popular Irish talk show "The Late Late Show" to highlight an invention -- a special three-part bucket that allowed farmers to easily carry more food to hungry calves.
Now Concannon is in the spotlight again. Yesterday he was featured in "The Secret Millionaire," a new program on Ireland's Raidió TeilifÃs Éireann (RTE).
I didn't see the program. But from what I can tell from the thoroughly positive reviews, Concannon came across quite genuine and likeable.
Few plastics processors would follow in Concannon's shoes and try to make a name for themselves -- and their companies -- on TV talk shows and reality programs.
Duluth, Ga., recycler U.S. Plastics Recovery has a good story to tell about how it started operations just before the start of the Great Recession, but it still managed to thrive.
Plastics News staff reporter Mike Verespej shared the story last year.
Steve Hogan, one of the firm's co-founders, tells the WSJ blog that the industrial plastics recycling company "was nearly swept under by the world-wide recession which hit in the fall of 2008. Our inventory was devalued by 90 percent and our sales fell by 70 percent in the first few months following the global collapse."
The company decided the only way to survive was to buy all the scrap it could at low prices, and wait for demand to pick up.
"To do this, we needed to raise capital, buy additional processing equipment and move into a larger facility. If we could implement this strategy quickly, we would leapfrog the competition," Hogan said.
Check the competition website for more stories about small businesses that are trying to innovate their way out of the recession. Eventually the newspaper will pick a company to feature in its Nov. 21 Small Business report.
What's your stereotype of the "super green" consumer? Scarborough Research recently prepared a report, "All About the Super Greenies," that attempts to categorize them.
Scarborough defines a "super green" consumer as someone who does at least 10 of these 14 "eco-friendly" activities regularly:
Buy eco-friendly household cleaning supplies
Buy locally grown food
Buy organic food
Donate money or time to environmental causes
Drive less/use alternative transportation
Pay more for eco-friendly products and services
Plan to buy a hybrid vehicle
Recycle electronics
Recycle glass, plastic or paper
Support politicians based on environmental policies
Use cloth or other reusable grocery bags
Use energy efficient light bulbs
Use less water at home
Use rechargeable batteries
I imagine quite a few Plastics Blog readers qualify, using that criteria.
According to Scarborough's research (PDF), "super greens" are "high-income, high-spending consumers who purchase luxury items and lead active lifestyles. Further, they are using the Internet for local information - from basic information on the weather to seeking out local businesses."
According to the report, they're more likely than typical consumers to contribute to political campaigns, to ride a bike, and to buy expensive jewelry.
The top markets for "super greens" are San Francisco, Seattle, Portland and San Diego, where they make up 17, 13, 11 and 11 percent of the local markets, respectively. (Did you think the percentages in those cities would be higher? I did).
The national average for any given market is 5 percent, and the cities with the lowest percentage of "super greens" are Rochester, NY;, Phoenix, Indianapolis, Knoxville, Louisville, San Antonio, Chattanooga, Miami, Nashville and Houston, all with 3 percent.
Maybe I've been following bag ban lawsuits for too long, but when I read this story today I chuckled.
According to The Beach Reporter, the former city attorney in Manhattan Beach, Calif., plans to file a lawsuit against the city. He's upset that he's not being credited with winning the landmark case that allows the city to ban plastic bags.
Former city attorney Robert Wadden was terminated in April. Then, earlier this month, the state Supreme Court ruled in favor of the city in the bag ban case.
"Their argument in firing me was that I was not competent. But you have to be fairly competent to win a Supreme Court case," Wadden told The Beach Reporter, a weekly newspaper in Manhattan Beach.
Wadden, who is 62 and worked for the city for more than 15 years, says he plans to file an age discrimination case, and he is seeking at least $155,000 in severance.
The city's elected leaders have applauded the ruling as a major victory for Manhattan Beach, but excluded mentioning Wadden in public remarks. His name was not included in a press release issued shortly after the ruling was announced, nor was it mentioned during a brief ceremony marking the victory at the most recent City Council meeting.
Wadden believes the lack of public recognition is intentional.
I guess the city could have saved itself some embarrassment by mentioning Wadden in their press release. Now the courts may have to decide who gets credit for winning the bag suit!
Report: More study needed on biodegradable plastics
Biodegradable plastics offer some promise for dealing with waste issues like litter and marine debris. But a new report prepared for the European Commission's Directorate-General Environment recommends more study before policymakers take actions that encourage manufacturers to redesign products to use biodegradable polymers.
The redesign of plastics and bioplastics has the potential to reduce the use of fossil fuels, decrease carbon dioxide emissions and decrease plastic waste.
More agreement is needed on the use of Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) to assess the environmental impact of bioplastics and redesigned plastics and LCAs need to focus more on end-of-life analysis.
Clearer definitions and better labeling on the new breeds of plastics are required as well as improved public communication.
Assessments of the impacts on waste management infrastructure should be performed at a local and national level.
Research is needed to assess the critical mass needed to make bioplastics affordable and to identify the most appropriate plastics to substitute.
The report doesn't go into a great deal of depth, but it is a useful primer for readers interested in the issues involved with the potentially growing market for biodegradable plastics.
General Motors Co. is honoring the supplier that spearheaded a program to recycle hundreds of miles worth of used oil booms from the Gulf of Mexico and use the material in car parts.
Mobile Fluid Recovery Inc. of Birmingham, Ala., worked with the Detroit-based automaker previously on efforts to clean and recycle rags used during auto production.
The multi-company effort headed by Mobile Fluid Recovery cleaned and recovered more than 200 miles of polypropylene, polyethylene, PVC and other materials from booms used in the 2010 oil spill cleanup in the Gulf.
The plastics were then used in air baffles for the Chevrolet Volt electric car.
GM announced in a June 10 news release that it gave the company is Environmental Excellence Award for providing unique recycling ideas and collaboration on projects.
(Thanks to Rhoda Miel, Plastics News' staff reporter in Detroit, for writing this up).
After I posted a video tour of Marglen Industries' PET recycling plant yesterday, I received an email link to another good recycling plant tour. So today I encourage readers to check out Placon Corp.'s EcoStar recycling plant in Fitchburg, Wis.
Jennifer Mitchell, Placon's marketing communications manager, says the company put together the video to provide a virtual tour the new recycling facility.
"We wanted to show the recycling story, not only tell it," she said. "Our EcoStar facility is unique in its ability to run mixed thermoform bales as well as bottles. Watching how it starts out as dirty plastic and comes out clean food-grade flake is quite the process. There are several washing cycles, sorting processes, metal detectors and even a decontamination process that can only clearly be explained by watching how it flows through."
Mitchell brought up another good reason for companies to create video tours of their plants (I mentioned a few in my blog post yesterday) -- it helps potential customers who have limited travel budgets.
"Many of our customers were interested when we announced we were adding this facility, but with traveling freezes it isn't always possible for companies to come and tour it," she said.
"This video has been used for more than customers though. We showed it at our open house a few weeks ago prior to employees and local community members going through the plant.
"Even with a tour guide it is difficult to hear the step-by-step process so this familiarizes them before they go in and may prompt some additional questions as they go through."
Placon hired a local company in Madison, Wis., to shoot and edit the video.
"We discussed trying to do it ourselves but because of the noise level from the machines it is hard to take a camera through and do it at a level we would be happy with," Mitchell said. "We are very pleased how it turned out and summarizes the story."
I hope the Marglen and Placon examples encourage more plastics processors to look into how they might use video to help promote their companies.
I don't think we're to this point yet, but perhaps it's almost here: At a debate in Aspen, Colo., yesterday on "Rethinking plastics," one participate made the argument that the time for debate is over -- single-use plastics should be banned.
That's the position of David de Rothschild, an environmentalist and author who in 2010 made a trip across the Pacific in a boat made from recycled plastics to raise awareness of ocean debris.
According to this report from The Aspen Times, Rothschild "said the debate is getting bogged down because the American Chemistry Council (ACC) is pumping millions of dollars annually into a campaign to warn people that the 'plastics police' will ruin the economy."
"Rothschild said the argument that banning plastic grocery bags will doom the economy is ridiculous. It will benefit imperiled ocean life and improve the food chain that threatens human health, he claimed," according to Scott Condon's report.
The plastics industry was represented at the debate by Marsha Craig, engineering polymers global business manager for DuPont Co. She's quoted in Condon's report talking about plastics recycling, adding: "I'm an optimist. I think plastics are good. I think they are going to get better."
"This video traces the path that an empty bottles travels, from a bound bale to being made into clean plastic flake that is then heated and converted to make either food-grade [recycled PET] pellets, which are used to make PET containers for food, or rPET fiber which is used in pillows, mattresses and carpeting," said Tom Lauria, IBWA's vice-president of communications
The video highlights the technology used to recycle PET, as well as the persistent issue that recyclers have getting enough bottles to feed their plants.
"We hope that this video will help promote recycling through a better understanding of the need for more recycled material and the useful products that can be made from empty PET bottles," Lauria said.
Other manufacturers might consider doing similar videos to highlight their technology and processes. They could come in handy helping to recruit new talent and in explaining the importance of your business to your community.
I've blogged many times about thieves targeting plastic pallets and crates, and various efforts to foil them. The state of Arizona is raising the ante, with a new law aimed specifically at protecting plastic pallets.
One bottling company executive quoted in the story estimates his firm spends $700,000 replacing pallets that "disappear."
"At night, people go out and scavenge and sell them," said John Kalil, vice president of Kalil Bottling Co. in Tucson. "If you're unemployed, lack cash, have a pickup truck, you're in business. We need something to shut them down."
According to the story, starting July 20 if a company -- for example, a plastics recycler or scrap dealer -- buys more than five pallets at a time that have a company logo, they'll have to collect personal information from the seller, including name, phone number, driver's license and license plate information. The buyers will have to keep the information on file for a year.
The penalty for failing to comply is a fine of up to $30,000.
Some states have similar laws that apply to other frequently stolen recyclables, like copper piping and catalytic converters.
NewsChannel 8 in Washington is reporting that 38 percent of the business there are not complying with the city's 5-cent-per-bag tax on single-use plastic and paper grocery bags.
The station's report quotes an unidentified official with the district's ">Department of the Environment who has been visiting stores as a "secret shopper" to check on whether they're complying with the law.
My question: Why are they failing to comply?
According to the story, the problem is that stores "simply don't understand" the law. Also, many shoppers don't understand that the law applies to businesses like sporting goods stores and hot dog stands.
This is something other cities mulling bag taxes will have to consider -- there will be a cost associated with enforcing the law, even if it's just aimed at educating retailers.
Despite being a college town, Evanston, Ill., historically has not had a reputation as a bastion of liberalism. But the city is now the focal point of the expanding U.S. debate over banning (or taxing) plastic bags.
Alderman Coleen Burrus started the local debate earlier this year when she suggested a 5-cent-per-bag tax, like the one in Washington, D.C. But now the city is debating a ban on both plastic and paper bags instead.
Will it fly? Newsreports from last night's City Council meeting seem to indicate that there's still room for debate.
"For every person who has said they are against it, there is someone else who has said they would shop in Evanston to support it," said Catherine Hurley, sustainable programs manager for the city.
Todd Ruppenthal of the Central Street Merchants Association told a reporter, "We are not against a greener Evanston. What we are against is something we believe is very small-sighted. This is the head of the pin of what could possibly be done."
I'm a former resident, so I was surprised when this issue first surfaced in Evanston. I thought it would disappear right away. When I went to school there, the city was known as a pretty conservative place. (It is still home to the Woman's Christian Temperance Union, and the city was "dry" until 1984).
But now I'm wondering if Evanston will be the first of many Midwest communities where government officials will debate the merits of single-use grocery bags.
Until now, most of the industry's efforts to combat bag bans has focused on boosting recycling programs in places like California, where the pressure was most intense. But it looks like bag makers had better step up that effort nationwide.
One local report from the Chicago area today quoted the industry's record on bag recycling to date:
Only 1.5 percent of plastic store bags are recovered through recycling programs in Illinois, a dismally low figure compared to the recovery rates for aluminum cans, plastic bottles, glass jars and most other recyclables, according to a 2009 study contracted by the Illinois Recycling Association.
If the response to taxes and bans is going to be to push recycling, that 1.5 percent recycling rate had better improve right away.
If you've ever been to the finish line at a marathon -- at least in a cold-weather location like Cleveland -- you know that runners wrap themselves in disposable blankets that look like giant pieces of aluminum foil to stay warm after the long race.
But runners don't tend to like to carry a lot of extra gear, so most of the blankets are discarded at the end of the day.
Let's see, we've got a relatively large volume of a material made of an identical material -- This sounds like an opportunity for a recycler, right? You've got it.
Today AFM Inc., the manufacturer of Heatsheets-brand blankets, announced that it worked with wood-plastic composite decking and railing manufacturer Trex Co. Inc. to recycle the finish line blankets from the Greater Washington Sports Alliance's SunTrust National Marathon on March 26.
According to the companies, this was the first race to participate in the new program, which allows events of any size to recycle and repurpose their Heatsheets thermal-reflective finish line blankets at Trex collection facilities across the country for transformation into durable decking and railing products.
"The Blankets to Boards program allowed us to easily recycle our Heatsheets, reduce our event's waste and improve our environmental impact while still providing the finish line blankets that runners need, especially on a cold day," said Daniella Levy, event manager for the Greater Washington Sports Alliance and finish line director for the SunTrust National Marathon.
With temperatures dipping into the low 30s during the marathon, the Greater Washington Sports Alliance provided 12,000 Heatsheets to runners. Approximately 2,000 - or 16 percent - were returned for recycling.
The sheets, which are made of low density polyethylene, were taken to a local Safeway store, then sent on to Trex.
The other day at Antec, someone asked a question during my panel discussion about how plastics recycling could be more like aluminum. The question kicked off a good discussion on the differences between the materials.
Today the "Save the Plastics" blog posted an item on high density polyethylene recycling that, if I'd seen it last week, I could have cited it as a source. So for the benefit of everyone, I'll share it here.
According to the blog, recycling HDPE makes great sense these days, in part because of the high costs of energy and virgin resin.
Here's the part that reminded me of aluminum: according to the post, "converting previously used HDPE plastic into resin uses 90 percent less energy than virgin resin to produce."
On the aluminum side, we've often seen the claim that recycling scrap aluminium requires only 5 percent of the energy used to make new aluminium.
Of course aluminum is more expensive than plastic, so the comparison isn't perfect. But that's a great fact that Plastics Blog readers can cite in support of the commercial viability of plastics recycling.
You might not expect an interview with an environmental activist to include comments like "Plastic can be an incredibly reusable, resilient, sustainable material."
Joe Fassler has a nice Q&A interview with Rothschild on The Atlantic's web site today.
I've blogged about Rothschild's mission before -- about the little boat made of recycled PET bottles, and about his effort to promote a recycled PET resin called Seretex. So we won't cover that again.
But the entire interview is very much focused on plastics, so I'll encourage you to click the link, while teasing you with a couple of the questions and Rothschild's answers:
Why do you think the plastic industry hasn't tapped into long-term use for its plastics? Wouldn't it make their own products more valuable?
"No. It's the high-volume, high-consumption model. The margins on a straw, say, are tiny. They want to sell 60 billion straws every year to make their profits, as opposed to something where you buy one, and that's it. It's not in the interest of the plastic industry to make products that are reusable and last longer when they're making money on high-volume, low-margin products, and churn, and consumption. It's an age-old problem: we live in a disposable society. At one point, it was a sign of affluence, I guess. These days, we've become highly suspicious of hygiene--so we use plastic forks once and throw them out. And we're hooked on convenience."
It's interesting that plastic is both villain and hero of your story. Yes, plastic's a dangerous, ubiquitous pollutant--but it's also a useful industrial material with vast untapped sustainable-design potential. How should we feel about it?
"I think we have to recognize that plastic's not going to disappear any time soon, and we've got learn to live with the consequences of our modern materials. Plastic can be an incredibly reusable, resilient, sustainable material. It can be the right material. Look at the number of applications--you're sitting on a plastic phone, writing notes on a plastic computer, using a plastic pen to draw up some other notes. When you look around, you see how ubiquitous it is. It's probably the most ubiquitous of all man-made materials."
Cigarette butts are a big component of litter, but they are difficult to deal with and often overlooked. Blake Burich, from the Columbus suburb of Dublin, Ohio, thinks he has a solution.
Burich's company, InnovaGreen Systems, is touting a process for turning the cellulose acetate butts into a material that can be used to make new products.
The Columbus Dispatch published a feature story on Burich a few weeks ago.
According to the story, Burich has patented a process to recycle the filters by mixing them with different solvents, creating plastics with a range of properties. The company is still a part-time, R&D-phase operation.
"I work on this thing from Saturday morning to Sunday night a lot of times," Burich told the Dispatch's Robert Vitale. "We're a bunch of guys who want to do something to improve Mother Earth."
Burich's current project is to create a sculpture for the city of Columbus using butts collected by volunteers.
This may be one of the oddest materials I've ever seen recycled -- and I once visited a plant that was trying to recycle disposable diapers.
If you're wondering how environmentalists feel about Coca-Cola Co.'s PlantBottle -- PET and HDPE containers made in-part from bio-based raw materials ... well, let's say it's not completely positive.
The Earth Resource Foundation sent a news release today after some of them received an invitation to an Earth Day event to launch Coke's Dasani-brand bottled water in a PET PlantBottle.
The release, titled "No Glee from Environmentalists for Coca-Cola 'PlantBottle'," takes the company to task. Much of the critcism could apply to any bottled water manufacturer, but a few of the points are specific to the PlantBottle material:
We Regret that despite your green leaf logo, your "plant bottle" is still just a PET plastic bottle and is not biodegradable or compostable on land or at sea.
We Regret that Coca-Cola will not be collecting and recycling their own PET "plant bottles," and that only approximately 20.9% percent of PET bottles are "recycled" (mostly into lower grade material that is not used in bottles again) in America. The remainder, at over 20 billion bottles, last forever in our landfills or in our environment, including our oceans. We also regret that Coca-Cola failed to achieve it's own pledge of using at least 10% recycled content in PET bottles and has just announced the shut down of it's PET recycling joint venture in South Carolina.
We Regret that Coca-Cola is substituting its chemical-laden petroleum plastic bottle with a chemical-laden petroleum and plant plastic bottle.
We Regret that estrogenic compounds in your PET "plant bottle" may leach into the water and impair human health and reproduction.
The release is in the form of a petition, and is signed by a number of leaders of California-based environmental groups.
While the petition does not link to Plastics News, we are the source of the information about Coke's recycling plant in South Carolina. For that story, check out this news story (which was updated today), as well as this interview with Coke's Scott Vitters.
Pour yourself a cup of melted butter and check out this story about University of Maine researchers who are using lobster shells to mold biodegradable golf balls.
The best parts: the lobster-dervived balls are made from a waste material, and they may be cheaper to make than biodegradable golf balls already on the market.
In conjunction with the Lobster Institute, Professor David Neivandt and undergraduate student Alex Caddell developed the technology.
These balls aren't meant for the PGA Tour, or even for duffers like me. The ball was created for use on cruise ships.
According to the university, the balls are the first to be made with crushed lobster shells with a biodegradable binder and coating. The shells would otherwise end up in a landfill.
Biodegradable golf balls now on the market retail for just under $1 per ball. The raw materials for the lobster shell balls cost as little as 19 cents each.
"The flight properties are amazing," Caddell told the university. "It doesn't fly quite as far as a regular golf ball, but we're actually getting a similar distance to other biodegradable golf balls."
UMaine has filed a provisional patent for the lobster-shell mixture, which can also be used for such products as plant pots that decompose in the ground, surveying stakes and other applications.
Tom Nosker, a plastics recycling expert long affiliated with Rutgers University, is featured in the April issue of Inventors Digest magazine. Nosker is being recognized as a mechanical engineers whose problem-solving skills touch our daily lives.
"It's a great honor for any group of peers to recognize one's work, and this is no exception," Nosker said in a news release. "Since my undergraduate days I've dedicated my career to finding a solution to the large amounts of waste that normally end up in landfills. If we can continue to search for innovative ways to convert garbage to useful products or energy, we're going to find ourselves a lot closer to solving some of the world's most pressing environmental and sustainability issues. And the solutions aren't hard to find. They just take creativity, dedication and sometimes a little luck. Okay, maybe a lot of luck."
Inventors Digest selected Nosker and five other mechancial engineers "based on peer recognition, societal impact of their work and commitment to their craft."
Today Nosker is also working with Axion International Inc. on using recycled plastics to replace wood and other traditional materials in applications such as railway ties and bridges.
It's hard to believe that Plastics News has been writing about Tom Nosker for more than 20 years.
At the risk of giving readers the impression that Ford vehicles are made of mushrooms and recycled carpeting, here's another post on how the automaker is highlighting its use of sustainable materials.
Ford Motor Co. today put out a news release on how it is using EcoLon nylon, made from 100 percent recycled carpet, to make cylinder head covers.
Ford said the cover is "the first automotive product of its kind manufactured from post-consumer recycled nylon," and is used in the Escape, Fusion, Mustang and F-150
To date, the program has saved more than 4.1 million pounds of carpet from landfills, the equivalent of nearly 154 football fields.
"By working with Wellman and Dana, Ford has found a way to bring green applications to a new, unique location in our vehicles," said Brett Hinds, Ford manager, engine design. "This single use has made an incredible impact, and we're continuing to look for ways to expand the use."
The plastics industry will generate some international news headlines in the next couple of days, following its "Global Declaration for Solutions on Marine Litter," announced March 22 in Honolulu.
With SPI's participation, more U.S. plastics processors can feel like they're now taking part in the debate.
"SPI and its member companies continue to embrace the concept of sustainability, and I am proud that we have joined with our peer organizations across the globe to make this formal declaration concerning marine debris," SPI President and CEO Bill Carteaux said in a news release. "The plastics industry has always been about creating innovations that meets societal needs. Marine litter is no exception and SPI stands ready to participate with others in problem-solving this issue."
Will the declaration make a difference in this issue, which until now has been driven largely by grass-roots environmental groups pushing for taxes and bans on products like plastic bags and polystyrene foodservice products?
Sarah Abramson Sikich, coastal resources director for Heal The Bay in Santa Monica, Calif., told Mike that it will not.
"Strong regulatory and policy action is needed that prevents trash from getting into waterways in the first place, as well as to promote the use of more sustainable items, like reusable bags and water bottles," she said. "We recommend target trash reductions, bans or charges on the most prevalent items found in aquatic environments be established to truly address the plastic pollution problem."
The Boston Globe had a nice story on Sunday about a trend in the housewares sector that we've been following, the rise of recycled-content products. The story went into some detail on housewares brand Preserve Products.
Plastics News staff reporter Rhoda Miel touched on this a few weeks ago, when recycled resins specialist NextLife LLC announced at the International Housewares Show that it had signed a partnership to supply post-consumer polypropylene to Recycline Inc., the Waltham, Mass., company that developed Preserve.
NextLife, based in Boca Raton, Fla., has worked with other companies to source recycled resins for their products. Its resins include proprietary post-consumer recycled PP and polystyrene that meet U.S. food safety requirements.
For Preserve, NextLife will provide PP for a range of items including toothbrushes, dishes and food storage products.
The Globe's story goes into some more detail on Preserve's plans, including naming the company's custom molder -- G&F Industries Inc.
G&F Industries Inc. of Sturbridge makes the Mini, along with other Preserve products, including colanders and reusable drinking cups. The two companies began working together in 2007. G&F president John J. Argitis says Preserve is still his only customer using 100 percent recycled plastic in its products. "From my perspective, I think it's pretty rare in the industry,'' he says.
While the relationship started small, today Preserve is a major customer of the 100-person plastic molding company. Once the Mini has been produced, G&F applies several labels (like "BPA Free'' and a bar code), puts a dozen of them into a cardboard box, and sends the boxes off to a distribution center in upstate New York. (Preserve uses software to analyze the environmental impact of nearly every decision it makes, such as whether to use trucks or trains to transport materials and products. The finished Minis are trucked; plastic the company reuses travels by rail.)
Check out the March 21 issue if Plastics News for our special report, "Plastics in Housewares," which includes a story on more products that are using recycled content.
And watch PlasticsNews.com tomorrow for Rhoda Miel's video reports from the show.
The students received information and training aimed at helping them to reduce plastic pollution in their hometowns.
So you can expects the newly motivated troops to start to take action to get taxes and bans passed in many, many more communities in the coming months.
Plastics News also has a story related to the summit today, on a study showing the extent that ocean fish eat plastic debris.
Plastic packaging manufacturers have some new competition jockeying for attention from consumers who value sustainability.
Ecologic Brands Inc. this week is rolling out a cardboard bottle for Seventh Generation laundry detergent. USA Todaywrote about the package yesterday.
Ecologic calls its packages pouches, but they look like bottles. They're made from recycled cardboard and newspaper, and when they're empty they can be torn up and recycled with newspapers. (That's assuming anyone out there is still buying newspapers and recycling them, right?)
The packages still have plastic caps -- so that they look like a regular laundry bottle, according to Ecologic CEO Julie Corbett. "If you change too much, you can end up scaring consumers from buying it," she told USA Today's Bruce Horovitz.
Surfers have been on the front lines on the battle against plastic marine debris. Here's a video about a surfer and shaper who's trying to make boards from recycled plastic.
I noticed the story today on Discovery Communications' Treehugger.com blog. It's the story of Kevin Cunningham in Providence, R.I., who created the Spirare Sustainable Surf Craft project -- bringing together a desire to do something about marine debris with his passion for making surfboards from sustainable materials.
He explains in the video that his materials include post-consumer polystyrene.
Are you up for debunking some myths about plastics recycling?
Envision Plastics Industries LLC's "Save the Plastics" is rapidly becoming my favorite plastics-related blog. Today the site posted a nice item that analyzes and comments on a well-traveled article from the Ecology Center in Berkeley, Calif., titled "Seven Misconceptions About Plastic and Plastic Recycling."
The folks at Envision Plastics, a major recycler of plastic packaging, is in a good position to comment on the "Misconceptions" article -- after all, they've got first-hand experience.
The blog notes that, despite the global audience that "Misconceptions" has enjoyed, the content of the article is actually more locally driven, "and not particularly accurate across a broader cross section of the country, or even California for that matter."
Here are a few of the seven "Misconceptions," along with Envision's take on the issues:
Misconception #1: "Plastics that go into a curbside recycling bin get recycled. Not necessarily.", says the Ecology Center. This statement is not accurate. Provided that we put the proper plastics in our recycling bins, as requested by our municipal waste authority, they will all be recycled. In Berkeley, they ask for #1 PET bottles and #2 HDPE bottles only. These plastics are in high demand and will be recycled back into plastics products.
The Ecology Center states that "In fact, none of the recovered plastic containers from Berkeley are being made into containers again...". This is not an accurate statement. We buy the #2 HDPE material from Berkeley (and many other California communities) and most of it is converted back into plastic bottles by Graham Packaging, Liquid Container, Consolidated Container, Clorox, Polytainer, Microdyne and other molders on the West coast. It is true that there are other end markets for this material and some of it may become plastic drainage pipe, plastic lumber or other products, but it certainly does not wind up in landfills.
Misconception #2: "Curbside collection will reduce the amount of plastic landfilled. Not necessarily.", says the Ecology Center. This doesn't make sense to us. Our plant in Chino, California saved 344,626,607 plastic bottles from being landfilled in 2010 alone and we are not the only recycler on the West coast.
The Ecology Center argues that more recycling will lead to more demand for plastics products. This is not how demand for consumer products is created; however, demand for recycled plastics currently exceeds supply of curbside collected plastics, so our attitude is, bring it on! We'll recycle it!
Envision doesn't just debunk the Berkeley article. They agree on some points, such as the meaning of the chasing arrows recycling symbol, and on the value of source reduction.
Check out the link for more "Save the Plastics" posts ... and keep up the good work, Envision.
Former Obama administration environmental adviser Van Jones will stir up the plastics industry with this speech recorded at the TedxGreatPacificGarbagePatch conference, held in Los Angeles in November.
His talk, "The economic injustice of plastic," links the ideas of social justice and the environment.
In his view, having an economy where throwaway plastic products are available leads to a society that also considers poor children "disposable."
Plastics have "horrific" impacts on the planet -- and also on people, Jones says.
Recycling makes consumers feel better about themselves, but he claims plastic isn't actually recycled -- it's burned, he says, in developing countries.
Some of this may seem ridiculous to an audience of plastics industry readers. But that does not mean it will be ignored.
Already, the Discovery Channel's Treehugger.com blog has linked to and posted the video.
Oregon State University Professor Angelicque White made global headlines this week with her report criticizing the media for grossly exaggerating the size of the "Great Garbage Patch."
Blogger Sylvia Rowley says plastic clearly poses a threat to wildlife, and suffers from its visibility in marine debris and litter.
"However, in some cases, plastic is environmentally the better option," she writes, because plastic, if recycled, has a better carbon footprint than materials like cardboard.
Nevertheless, she cites the example of a UK company, Riverford Organics, that tried to switch its packaging from cardboard to durable plastic boxes, only to face a backlash from its customers.
Founder Guy Watson told the Guardian that the company decided to stay with cardboard because of the perception that it was better. Riverford Organics did not want to risk losing customers who believed plastic was environmentally unfriendly.
"You have to be quite courageous to fly in the face of people's intuitive judgement," Watson said, "and some might say commercially foolhardy." (Now he's investigating using bamboo, instead.)
Manufacturers can't expect many customers to step up and make the case that plastics are the superior choice. Publicity about studies like White's at Oregon State may help.
But until the plastics industry makes progress on its recycling efforts, and its image problem, potential customers like Watson will have a tough time carrying that burden on their own.
Todd Wynn, vice president of the libertarian Cascade Policy Institute, has a thoughtful column about plastic bag bans on OregonLive.com.
"Plastic Bags: It's time to get beyond 'ban, ban, ban,'" argues that plastic bags are not the environmental nightmare that some environmentalists make them out to be. Litter and marine debris problems are not the result of plastic bags existing -- they are the result of bags not ending up in the proper place -- landfills, trash cans and recycling bins, Wynn says.
The problem is littering, yet the only solution proposed is an outright ban.
The argument doesn't make much sense anyhow. Plastic doesn't just exist in bags. It is in a whole host of products that the world consumes. What's next? Banning all plastic on Earth?
It is unfortunate that supposedly well-intentioned advocacy organizations put all their efforts into outright consumer bans. These organizations could work towards creating public awareness of a perceived problem and organizing a grassroots movement to use alternatives voluntarily.
The only way to effect meaningful change is to change culture, which requires voluntarily winning hearts and minds.
The column doesn't have any reader comments yet, but I imagine that will change soon. The bag ban issue is heating up in Oregon. I'll be checking back on this debate.
In the past couple of days I've received word of a couple of new plastics-focused blogs, plus I received results from a big resin company's experiment with social media.
The new blogs first.
Lavergne Group, a company with a well known project to recycle ink cartridges for HP, has unveiled a blog focused on recycling-related issues and the company's capabilities. Lavergne added the blog in a recent redesign of its web site. The company also added a Facebook profile, and it plans to add Twitter and YouTube sites in the near future.
AMAMCO Tool, a Duncan, S.C., custom tooling provider, has also made the leap into blogland with CustomCarbideTools.Com, a web log devoted to information about efficient machining of carbon fiber composite parts.
It's interesting to see more companies dipping their toes into social media. The biggest plastics-related move into this area in 2010 had to be Dow Chemical Co.'s ambitious effort at K 2010, the "Stronger, Together" project.
Midland, Mich.-based Dow built a portal for its efforts at www.dowstrongertogether.com that linked its Twitter, Facebook and YouTube pages. The company updated the sites frequently before and during K 2010 -- I'm sure that was a key to the successful effort -- and it also did quite a bit of promotion of the project.
At the show, the company even had a staffer doing daily video reports from Dusseldorf.
How did it all work? Simon Dibb, who was involved with the project at marketing-PR firm Porter Novelli, said Dow was "pleasantly surprised" by the post-K metrics, and it is now evaluating the various channels to determine how to continue to use them to serve the online community it has built.
Key metrics to date include:
6,300 YouTube views of K-specific Dow videos, some featuring Dow managers expressing what Stronger, together means to them, plus the daily news updates (daily news videos accounted for 3,850 of the total video views).
1,771 page views on Dow's social media web portal www.dowstrongertogether.com
146 Dow at K 2010 Facebook fans, with 75 comments/likes generated in 4 weeks
129 Dow at K 2010 Twitter followers (including 20+ trade media)
Not huge numbers, to be sure, but Dow felt it had an opportunity to be a first-mover in social media compared to its rival resin suppliers.
The plastics industry's recycling record is the main focus of a multi-part report from the Canadian Broadcasting Corp.'s CBC News in Winnipeg, Manitoba, titled "The Predicament of Plastics."
Not a lot new here -- they reveal that most plastic that residents in Winnipeg put in their blue bins heads to China, where processors make durable goods like Barbie dolls and flyswatters.
The "story comments" sections for the report are filled with reader opinions -- both on the pro and con sides of the plastics industry's environmental record. According to the site, additional comments are welcome until 11:59 p.m. on Nov. 18.
Right now the group is asking students to come up with solutions to plastic waste problems in their towns. About 100 students will be selected to attend the summit, along with filmmakers, scientists, ocean researchers and "media experts" who will train the students to become expert on reducing plastic in their communities. Submissions are due by Nov. 30.
I spotted information about the summit thanks to Southern California Public Radio, which did an "Everyday Heroes" story about a local student and environmental activist who plans to attend the meeting.
Unless you're a tool builder for a packaging manufacturer, you probably don't consider plastic bottle caps objects of art. But Brooklyn, N.Y.-based artist Aurora Robson has managed to take the lowly bottle cap and turn it into a thing of beauty, in a large-scale exhibit that opened Oct. 15 in Philadelphia called "Be Like Water."
The project uses thousands of bottles and caps, collected by the schoolchildren, to create what Philadelphia Daily News columnist Ronnie Polaneczky calls "ethereal, delicate, crystal-like forms that gitter and sway on suspended filament. Walking under them is like gliding beneath dangling ice sculpures."
When the exhibit is finished, the plastic will be dismantled and recycled.
California gets most of the attention related to plastic bag bans, but North Carolina actually passed a state-mandated ban that takes effect today.
The Virginian-Pilot newspaper in Norfolk, Va., has a pretty thorough feature story about the Carolina ban.
The ban applies to retailers on the Outer Banks -- specifically, businesses in coastal Currituck, Dare and Hyde counties.
Retailers can continue to use bags they already have in inventory, but they can't buy any more. Plastic is still permitted for meat, fish and produce. Shoppers are encouraged to bring reusable bags from home -- they actually get a discount on purchases if they do.
If they don't, then retailers must offer paper bags with at least 40 percent recycled content.
The bag ban on the Outer Banks is driven by environmentalism, and by tourism.
A spokesman for state Sen. Marc Basnight, who proposed the law, notes: "A littered-up Outer Banks is not what will continue to attract visitors from around the country."
California's Legislature failed to pass a ban on plastic bags on Aug. 31. But you should expect more municipalities and counties around the country to consider local bans in the coming months.
Robert Sarnoff, a film maker who specializes in socially relevant issues, recently sent me a link to his latest video, "Green, An AmeriCan Dream."
The video takes a look at the "pickers" who collect plastic and aluminum containers in Brooklyn, N.Y., and bring them in to collect the deposit. Sarnoff calls it "the underbelly of our economy."
I asked for the story behind the video, and he shared this:
"When I came across this Brooklyn street army lined up in the pouring rain under the train tracks, sparks cascading down along with the drops, rust loosening, falling, as they recycled containers, redeemed chits, reclaimed their lives, I was smitten."
"Taken with the whole process, I followed these 'pickers' collecting plastic bottles, crunching, blowing, to get a good scan, bagging, securing the containers with bungey cords and locks, crushing the large colorful bags into carts, wheeling them to recycling centers."
"Hardworking, diligent, minding the order of things, of the machines that were their gold mines, fixing, scraping, cleaning the mechanisms."
"To witness these workers who are a vital piece in the container collection infrastructure is an eye-opener. To realize that they clean the streets, beaches, parks, while saving the land and oceans is refreshing."
Sarnoff told me a good documentary allows the viewer to gain access to a world he/she never knew existed.
Anyone who's lived in a major city knows these people exist -- but I admit that I've never had such an intimate look at the lives of the 'pickers' -- the footsoldiers of the U.S. recycling infrastructure.
I hope you enjoy the video below. Sarnoff says there is interest in it becoming a complete 60-90 minute piece.
Plastics News readers know MBA Polymers Inc., the California company that's developed technology to separate and recycle plastics -- including engineering resins -- from durable products like computers.
Now millions more around the world know about MBA, as the company was featured on Sept. 18 by op-ed columnist Thomas Friedman in The New York Times.
Friedman's column, "Aren't we clever," highlights an oddity that Plastics News has previously covered: Although MBA developed its technology in the United States, right now it does almost all of its plastics recycling in Europe and Asia.
Why? Because even though the U.S. generates more electronic waste than any other country -- and more auto shredder waste than what's created in all of Europe -- there's no infrastructure or incentive for MBA to recycle those materials here at home.
"I employ 25 people in California and 250 overseas," MBA founder Mike Biddle told Friedman. "I am in the E.U. and China because the above-ground plastic mines are there or are being created there ... I am not in the U.S. because there aren't sufficient mines."
A leading plastics recycler, Envision Plastics Industries LLC in Reidsville, N.C., started a new blog yesterday that looks promising.
The company, which has long stressed that North American recyclers need more material, said the blog will address three key areas for plastics recyclers:
Educate on current issues in post-consumer recycling (PCR)
Provide clarification or additional information on issues related to PCR that may not have been presented accurately or been told the complete story by parties with vested interests
Introduce and elaborate on benefits of using PCR
Topics will include legislation, innovations, and positions and opinions plus opportunities to take in-depth looks at news and issues.
Here's a taste, starting with a quote from Scott Mouw, environmental supervisor with teh state's Division of Pollution Prevention and Environmental Assistance:
In simple terms, the disposal bans are precisely and primarily intended to divert highly marketable recyclable materials away from the waste stream and into the stream of commerce. We have some early indications that the legislation is having that effect and will have extensive data from local governments by late fall that indicate the actual situation.
The next blog post topic: "California's Plastic Bag Ban Legislation - What are the impacts so far?"
Is the US ready for recycled plastic building materials?
Jim Kerstein, CEO of composite bridge manufacturer Axion International, believes there's an urgent need to start using recycled plastics in construction applications.
Incorporating more plastics into automobiles was possible in the 1940s -- Henry Ford was a proponent -- and the shift would have reduced manufacturing costs and increased carmakers' profits. But automakers were slow to evolve.
America doesn't have 50 years to adapt to the idea of recycled plastic as a building material. "Couple concerns about the environment with almost unanimous agreement that the nation's infrastructure is in desperate need of repair, and you have what would seem like a perfect storm to drive market acceptance of new composite plastics that are capable of replacing legacy building materials," he wrote.
"...the private sector is so focused on the bottom line that unless you're extremely competitive in the short term, long-term benefits have little value."
Also, "being green doesn't seem to be very relevant when it comes to the decision-making process. While it is icing on the cake, a green solution is what sells the cake."
Recycling, litter, producer responsibility and related issues are on the table in Madison, Wis., where the state legislature's special committee on single-use plastics met for the first time a few weeks ago.
Rep. Spencer Black, chairman of the committee, said in a news release that the panel's job is to "find ways to keep more plastic out of our landfills as waste and out of our landscape as litter."
""Plastic is used widely because it is a very useful and convenient material for agricultural, industrial and commercial purposes. But its widespread use also poses a problem, both as litter and as a major source of waste for landfills," he said. "Plastic, as a petrochemical product, contains a valuable resource that we should seek to use again instead of using it once and throwing it out. Working with business in a cooperative manner, I believe we can draft legislation that will benefit both the environment and the economy."
The committee heard from local and national experts, including representatives from the American Chemistry Council and the Association of Postconsumer Plastics Recyclers.
Here's one of the most unusual plastics applications I've seen in a long time: A U.K. company called AndVinyly says it can press the ashes of deceased music lovers into vinyl records.
Company founder Jason Leach tells Exclaim! that he is still working out details, and has not actually pressed human ashes into an album yet.
The process, however, is simple, he says. In an interview with Wired.co.uk, Leach said:
The process of setting human ashes into vinyl involves a very understanding pressing plant. Basically the ashes must be sprinkled onto the raw piece of vinyl (known as a "biscuit" or "puck") before it is pressed by the plates. This means that when the plates exert their pressure on the vinyl in order to create the grooves, the ashes are pressed into the record.
The basic package is £2,000.
I have a feeling this is a service that will get a fair share of publicity in the next few days, but it's not going to go platinum anytime soon...
Instead of resorting to bag taxes and bans, some communities and retailers have tried voluntary efforts to reduce bag consumption. Let's check on the status of two -- one small-scale effort, and one on a very large scale.
On the small side, an IGA grocery store in Lennox Head, Australia, announced this week that it is bringing back plastic bags, after 12 months of being bag-free.
The store manager told The Northern Star newspaper that the decision was made due to overwhelming customer feedback.
"Due to customer feedback over the past 12 months we have reintroduced customer choice," the manager told the newspaper. "We have boxes, green bags, paper bags for 17 cents and reusable, biodegradable plastic bags."
Meanwhile, in Britain, groceries are reporting dramatic success with a voluntary effort.
Since the program started four years ago, British retailers say they have cut the number of plastic bags used by 4 billion annually.
Some 6.1 billion carrier bags were handed out in the first five months of 2010, a 43 percent drop from the 10.6 billion handed out 2006, according to the British Retail Consortium.
The Daily Mail -- which is sponsoring a Banish the Bags campaign -- reported that BRC said the figures are a "ringing endorsement" of the voluntary approach taken by supermarkets.
A designer in the United Kingdom is developing a plan to collect and recycle chewed gum and turn it into a plastic that can be molded into new products.
Gross, I know, but interesting.
The designer is Anna Bullus, who, according to her biography, left a job at Chase Furniture in 2008 to set up her own company, Gumdrop Ltd., "to tackle the global problem of gum litter."
Her web site is filled with statistics about the problems caused by gum litter, including the cost of cleaning it up that burdens big cities like London.
For example, she claims that Britain creates, on average, 7,000 metric tons of used gum each year.
More "gum facts" from her site:
On average 30,000 pieces of gum are irresponsibly discarded everyday on Oxford Street in London.
If everyone in the UK stopped irresponsibly discarding their gum on Oxford Street today, it would still take over 4 months to clean the existing gum off the street.
Cleaning chewing gum off the streets in the UK, on average, costs three times the price of a piece of gum.
Three and a half billion pieces of gum are disposed of irresponsibly each year in the UK.
The British Government spends £150 million each year on cleaning gum off the UK's streets.
Nine out of ten city paving stones have gum stuck to them.
Bullus has a solution to the problem: using recycled gum to make a gum-derived plastic that she calls "Bullus Recycled Gum Polymer," or BRGP.
Right now, in several pilot projects, BRGP is being molded into brightly colored pink bins where consumers can toss their used gum. (Not exactly closed-loop recycling, but let's not go there...)
When the bins are full, both the bins and their contents are collected and recycled into new BRGP.
I'm guessing the bins smell sort of fruity.
Eventually, Gumdrop Ltd. hopes to develop other applications for BRGP.
Bag ban is about politicians 'micromanaging our lives'
The North County Times in Escondido, Calif., recently editorialized against the proposed California plastic bag ban with a column that blasted the legislative "nanny state" trend.
"... if plastic grocery bags can be banned, what other popular consumer items will the nanny state try to take away from us? After all, if plastic grocery bags are bad, then plastic trash bags can't be much better. Or perhaps the gurus in Sacramento will decide that we all have to purchase our movies and music digitally to keep CDs, DVDs and Blu-Rays out of our landfills," the editorial asserts.
"Keeping plastic out of our landfills (and more important, our ocean) is a good idea, so be a good steward and recycle that plastic. And offering tax credits for those who invest in research into biodegradable or recyclable alternatives to the many plastics would be a wise government policy indeed.
"But micromanaging our lives and imposing what amounts to a regressive tax on the poor and middle class -- while fundamental government tasks like passing a budget remain undone -- is, to put it as kindly as possible, irresponsible."
For more on the "nanny state" argument against plastic bans, check out this funny story from the San Francisco Chronicle, which notes that Lt. Gov. Abel Maldonado is using a similar tact against San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom.
Maldonado sponsored a booth at the state Republican party convention with a table of products "banned in San Francisco," including plastic water bottles.
"With a pen and piece of paper and an executive order, he bans Pepsi and Coke," Maldonado told The Chronicle. "You know what? If I don't like Pepsi and Coke, I just don't drink it. But if Gavin doesn't like it, he bans it for everybody."
Every so often, I come across a plastics-related idea that's so ridiculous that I try to ignore it, rather than sharing it with Plastics Blog readers.
The "Recycled Island" is just such an idea.
You may have seen stories on this project. Whim Architecture, a Dutch firm, has suggested using plastic waste floating in the Pacific Ocean to create a massive floating island.
The island -- check out the colorful illustration -- would use 44 million kilograms of plastic waste to create 3,861 square miles of "sustainable living space," where islanders could live on fishing and agriculture.
The aim is to create a floating environment for 500,000 people, powered by solar energy and wave motion.
When I first saw news reports about "Recycled Island" in June, I tried my best to ignore them. Seriously, no one is going to use recycled plastic to build a 3,861-square-mile island for 500,000 people in the Pacific Ocean.
This is not the answer to the plastics industry's marine debris problem -- it's a pipe dream.
But the project continues to generate headlines around the world. So I'm going on the record and saying -- enough. Please.
To help support my case -- that "Recycled Island" should be known as "Ridiculous Island" -- consider today's blog post from Miriam Goldstein, a doctoral student at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography.
The main problem is this: The vast majority of plastic bits (>90%) are smaller than a pencil eraser, and are spread out enough to be mostly invisible to the naked eye. It is therefore extremely hard to remove the plastic without catching a lot of ocean life. ...
The "Recycled Island" folks may be able to build a giant island out of recycled plastic - I am not an architect and I have no idea if this is feasible. (Though I hope they know that there are hurricanes in Central Pacific...) But I do know that it would be very, very difficult to remove a significant percentage of the plastic without catching a ton of zooplankton. And catching and killing tons of marine life would not be a good way to meet the criteria of the project.
Which happens to be to save marine life.
I could say a lot more about how little is known about the impacts of plastic in the North Pacific Central Gyre, or about the ridiculous notion that adding a giant land mass would "return more balance" to the open ocean - but I've got to sleep sometime. So to summarize, I do not think Recycled Island is feasible because it would be environmentally damaging to collect enough plastic in the North Pacific Central Gyre to build their enormous island.
Hear hear.
Projects like "Recycled Island" may help focus attention on the marine debris problem, which could be a good thing.
But there's also a risk that some sector of the public will think, "Hey, we don't need to worry about this any more, because I read a story about some Dutch conservationists who are building an island with all of our plastic waste."
Creating an island out of recycled plastic may be "romantic," or at least visually exciting. But the real solution to the marine debris problem is to stop creating marine debris.
The debate is heating up on a proposal in California that would ban some plastic grocery bags.
Assembly Bill 1998 would ban grocery stores from giving out plastic bags and require customers to pay at least 5 cents for each paper bag.
Let's take a look at some of the viewpoints expressed about AB 1998 on various news-oriented websites today.
Thomas D. Elias, a syndicated columnist who writes about California state issues, is in favor of the ban/tax. His column today, "Plastic bag fee is a tax you don't have to pay," cites three reasons: "Oil, crowded landfills and the persistence of plastic."
Plastic comes from oil; each plastic bag not used is a small step toward energy independence. Meanwhile, using fewer paper bags would contribute to reducing greenhouse gases by keeping more trees intact.
Plus, many landfills are near capacity and the more trash piled into them, the greater the pressure to create new ones farther and farther out from where urban residents actually produce their trash. Then there's the ubiquitous nature of plastic bags: What swimmer hasn't washed up against one at an ocean beach; who hasn't seen them blowing in the wind?
But here's the real reason the so-called bag tax and the partial plastic bag ban are good ideas: This is one tax you don't have to pay. Reuse existing plastic or paper bags and there's no charge. Use cloth or rattan bags, backpacks or some other container, and you'll also avoid any levy.
Elias has a bias in favor of paper bags that isn't fully explained. He says: "Paper bags are neither as pernicious nor as persistent as plastic. They can be used several times if their bottoms stay dry and they decompose in landfills."
Is he aware of the lifecycle studies that give an edge to plastic over paper? I don't see the logic behind treating them differently.
Tim Shestek of the American Chemistry Council is opposed to the ban-tax bill.
As you consider this issue, keep in mind that this year, the Vacaville Police Department has to cut nearly $1 million from its budget. A budget cut of this size takes uniforms off the streets. But fear not -- AB 1998 will create its own force of "bag police." They won't keep our streets safe, but they'll be sure to fine any mom and pop store giving out grocery store bags -- up to $10,000. It's just another layer of misguided government bureaucracy.
We need jobs. We need teachers and real police. We need a state budget. Lawmakers should focus on these urgent problems facing Californians, not "paper or plastic?"
This looks like ACC is taking a page out of its successful playbook from Seattle, where it emphasized the cost of the bag tax to consumers and convinced voters to reject a proposed 20-cent fee on both plastic and paper bags last year.
On top of that, ACC is stressing that the industry has made an effort in California to recycle plastic bags -- and the Legislature should give that a chance to succeed rather than pulling out the rug and banning plastic bags.
Recycling creates jobs, after all, and if consumers can keep their bags and recycle them too, perhaps that can be a long-term solution to the state's marine debris and litter problem.
If your company is serious about sustainability, check out how injection molder Cascade Engineering Inc. treats the subject.
The company puts out an annual "Triple Bottom Line" report, which measures its environmental and social goals -- something that's fairly unique to the firm's DNA. Here's a link to a copy of Cascade's 2009 report (warning, it's a big PDF file), which looks like something that a far larger company would create.
The report includes information on a variety of programs, like its Welfare-to-Career program (with 95 percent retention, which is a "down" year for Cascade), ways it encourages its employees to get and stay healthy, and graphs on its water consumption rate, recycling efforts, and energy usage.
Just about anything that could be quantified is listed here. There's lots of information in there for companies looking at measures of sustainability, and for those looking at "social" costs.
Cascade made headlines today with news that the Grand Rapids, Mich., molder is investing $2.8 million in its Cascade Renewable Energy division, and expects to hire up to 183 more people for the unit during the next five years.
The Plastiki -- the all-recycled-PET catamaran that's been sailing across the Pacific Ocean since February -- has reached its destination in Sydney, Australia.
The last 200 nautical miles of the 10,000-nautical-mile journey were made with the help of a tow, after the main sail was damaged off the Queensland coast.
Captain David de Rothschild told the Sunshine Coast Daily: "To date we have made a number of routine and unplanned stops during the voyage and this tow and stop will be no different."
For more background, including a video and lots of links, check these earlier Plastic Blog posts that featured the Plastiki:
He links the BP oil spill to the marine debris issue, pointing out that according to some estimates, "the amount of oil used to produce plastic every day is the same amount as the oil that is spilling into the Gulf of Mexico every day from the damaged Deepwater Horizon drilling rig."
Browne then ties marine debris to bisphenol A safety, charging that plastic water bottles are made from BPA, "a known 'endocrine disruptor', which can mimic the body's hormones and can have side effects."
Despite the level of detail in the column, there's no evidence here that Browne knows that BPA is a precursor to polycarbonate, or that most plastic water bottles are made from PET, not polycarbonate.
In fact, he writes that last year his touring production company "decided to eliminate plastic water bottles from the list of things we are provided in the venues we perform in. Now we carry two five-gallon coolers, and each of the band and crew carries a stainless-steel water bottle."
It is more likely, of course, that those five-gallon coolers are made from polycarbonate than the single-serve bottles they replaced.
My favorite snippet from Browne is what he has to say about recycling:
The plastics industry insists that all we have to do is recycle. But why should we bear the cost and responsibility of recycling it? Why should we buy the stuff and then pay to dispose of it? In the case of the oceans, we will never be able to clean them up faster than the rate plastic is going in.
The answer is to stop producing it, to stop buying it. A few years ago I was on a remote beach in Spain and spent the day cleaning it up with another guy there, a German. It was mostly plastic. He muttered that the locals didn't appreciate the natural beauty of the place.
Both of us assumed it had been thrown away there carelessly, perhaps dumped there. But now I don't think so. I can see now that it had all washed up there. Humans are slobs.
There's no way around it. We are slobs. I know surfers who travel the world and ride the planet's most remote waves. They say there are plastic bottles washing up in Antarctica, in Patagonia, and all of the most distant and pristine beaches in the world.
Interesting take. Is that a popular opinion among environmentalists, that the public can't be trusted to recycle, so the answer to litter problems is to stop manufacturing products?
In my regular searches for news about plastics, I tend to see a lot of comments from celebrities about plastic packaging. I read them all, but I share very few with readers of the blog.
But Browne touches on so many issues in his column today, I made an exception.
Pete Grande, president and CEO of Command Packaging in Vernon, Calif., wrote a powerful defense of plastic bags in an op-ed column published today on the Los Angeles Times Web site.
Headlined "The unintended consequences of a plastic bag ban," Grande writes that if California adopts a ban on plastic bags, consumers would switch to environmentally unfriendly paper bags, and the state would lose jobs.
"Simply put, the phrase 'Ban the bag' is a sound bite, not a solution. It's a proposal that will make legislators feel good rather than do good. In fact, it will do much harm," Grande wrote.
Here are the facts. First, the ban will have an immediate impact. I disagree with those who say that banning plastic bags won't be effective. I believe it will be effective -- at killing jobs. At my factory alone, 200 people will lose good-paying jobs almost immediately. This comes at a time when our state budget is running a $19-billion deficit and when our state economy has an unemployment rate higher than 12%. Obviously, this is not the time to be pursuing regulatory policies that will kill jobs and hurt our economy.
Second, this ban will not only be bad for the economy, it will be bad for the environment. Studies demonstrate that plastic bags leave a lighter footprint on the earth than paper bags. Yet the proposed law would promote more paper bags and harm our ability to recycle. Ironically, stores and consumers shifted to plastic bags was because of environmental concerns about using paper bags. Now, in a complete reversal, we are on the verge of passing a law that will greatly increase the use of paper bags, thus destroying trees and increasing emissions of greenhouse gases, the leading cause of global warming. Is that smart environmental policy?
The goal of the bill may be to reduce first-use bags, but the net effect is simply a replacement of plastic bags with paper bags. And that's bad news for anyone who cares about the environment. An Environmental Impact Report by Los Angeles County acknowledges that if plastic bags are banned, 85% of consumers would switch to paper bags instead of reusable bags. We have seen this to be true in places where plastic bags have been eliminated, including San Francisco, Whole Foods and Trader Joe's. And what would this switch to paper bags mean for global warming? According to the figures in the report, 85% of Californians switching to paper bags would be the equivalent greenhouse gas emissions of between 250,000 and 550,000 more cars on the road every year. That's because life-cycle analysis calculates that paper bags result in more than three times the greenhouse emissions as plastic bags.
Grande writes that he opposes the excessive use of packaging, including plastic bags, and he urges readers to reuse or recycling bags, and not take more bags than they need at the store.
"That's the right way to curb plastic bag use. The wrong way is with a piece of legislation that ignores the facts and stirs fears. Any solution to this issue must be grounded in reality and deal with the fact that a ban on plastic bags will lead to job losses and more paper bags that will negatively affect the environment.
"Let's not ban the bag; let's bag the ban."
Grande's column is a response to the LA Times' own editorial on the topic, published June 24, which supported a state ban on plastic grocery bags.
"Banning plastic grocery bags" made the case that plastic bags "are a nuisance to the land, sea and animals. The state Senate should stand up to the bag industry and ban them by passing AB 1998."
PLAIN TWP. -- Amish-built outdoor furniture made from recycled plastic milk jugs is now available at Amish World, 3939 Everhard Rd. NW.
The "poly lumber" furniture is equivalent in weight and size to traditional hardwood patio furniture. The company says it has a 20-year warranty and will withstand all types of weather.
Electrolux wants to make vacuums from marine debris
Appliance maker Electrolux AB says it wants to make vacuum cleaners from plastic waste harvested from the world's oceans.
The project, called "Vac from the sea," would solve two problems, according to the company's video (see below).
First, it would help clean up the garbage patches. Second, it would boost the supply of recycled plastics that durable goods makers could use.
"The supply of sustainable raw material, such as recycled plastic, is crucial for making sustainable appliances, and assisting consumers in making their homes greener," Hans Stråberg president and CEO of Electrolux, says on a web page explaining the project.
"I therefore hope you will join us in raising awareness about the threat plastic poses to marine habitats, and the urgent need for taking better care of the plastic that already exists."
Electrolux isn't new to using recycled plastic. In the past few months, we've had a couple of stories about their Ergospace Green project, a canister vacuum made using 55 percent recycled plastic.
In that case, the material was supplied by MBA Polymers Inc. of Richmond, Calif.,, which uses automotive shredder residue as the raw material.
So while Electrolux's "vac from the sea" project sounds a little wacky -- how can a company mold a product from a feedstock that's so contaminated? -- this is a company that has a track record for using hard-to-recycle materials.
I expect they'll find a way -- and the right partners -- to make this work.
The New York Times has a story today about Jean Hill, the 82-year-old activist -- critics call her "a retiree with too much time on her hands" -- who managed to make it illegal to sell bottled water in Concord, Mass.
"Where Thoreau Lived, Crusade Over Bottles" manages to paint a portait of a city where a single citizen, through persistence, successfully convinces the majority of voters in her community to ban water bottles.
"I'm going to work until I drop on this," Hill told Abby Goodnough from the Times. "If you believe in something, you have to persist and you have to have a thick skin."
Plastic is clearly the prime target here -- the story notes that Hill started her crusade after her grandson told her about the Pacific garbage patch. She complains that millions of plastic water bottles were disposed of daily, and most are not recycled.
The International Bottled Water Association, rather than the plastics industry, is the leading industry authority quoted in the story. IBWA spokesman Tom Lauria says: "Some people in the industry kind of respect her because of her age and her vision ... but we believe that vision is distorted. There are far worse products to pick on than water."
Cable TV's Sundance Channel is airing "Addicted to Plastic," a documentary by Ian Connacher.
Sundance describes it as "an international odyssey revealing the disturbing long-term effects of the most ubiquitous and versatile material ever invented. From water bottles and Styrofoam cups to toothbrushes and garbage bags, in less than a century the pervasive presence of plastics has marked every ecosystem and all aspects of human activity. Visually compelling, entertaining and thought provoking, ADDICTED TO PLASTIC is both a wake-up call and an inspiring consideration of possible recycling or down-cycling solutions."
The film is the result of three years of filming in 12 countries on 5 continents, including two trips to the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, according to Bulfrog Films.
The film details plastic's path over the last 100 years and provides a wealth of expert interviews on practical and cutting edge solutions to recycling, toxicity and biodegradability. These solutions - which include plastic made from plants - will provide viewers with a new perspective about our future with plastic.
In the eastern time zone, Sundance will air the film tonight at 8:30 and 11:45 p.m., then again on Sunday at 10:30 a.m.
Bioplastics are a hot topic among recyclers -- especially biodegradable resins. Are processors paying attention?
Dordan Manufacturing Co. Inc., a thermoformer in Woodstock, Ill., has been studying the issue for some time, and today Chandler Slavin, the company's sustainability coordinator, posted a thoughtful item on the topic.
"Taken together, one would assume that the 2005 Ingeo PLA is a more sustainable option than traditional plastics, as manifest through this study," she concludes. "However, it is important to take into account the other dimensions discussed above, such as end of life management, complete biodegradation, and sustainable sourcing. By understanding the advantages and disadvantages of bio-based resins from an environmental perspective, packaging professionals can make informed material selections and truly comprehend the ecological ramifications of their packaging selections and designs."
It's nice to see a processor taking the time to do the research into the pros and cons of using bioplastics, and I know that Dordan isn't alone. I get a few phone calls a month from processors with questions about what materials are "most sustainable," and I know others at Plastics News get the same question.
As I wrote back in January, I think most processors are willing and able to adapt to their customers' materials-related sustainability goals -- they just need information and guidance.
Processors are flexible about using recycled content, or bio-based resins, or switching from one virgin material to another. It all depends on cost, performance and what the customer wants.
When Plastics News writes about sustainability, we naturally tend to focus on materials-related issues, and most frequently about packaging.
Carbon footprint plays a role, too, as well as energy savings, either from the reduced transportation costs that lightweight plastics bring to the table, or insulating properties of plastic building products.
The item, "Sustainability Faceoff: Coca-Cola vs. PepsiCo," does look at packaging, but that's just the beginning. How about issues like:
Where does the company source its sweetener?
How is its worker safety record? Do employees participate in wellness programs?
Do workers own a share of the company? How much does the CEO earn compared with the worker bees?
Does the company buy products from minority-owned and women-owned suppliers?
And the bottom line -- that's important to having a sustainable business, too. How profitable is the company?
It's interesting to see this big-picture approach. I expect most plastics companies will continue to have their customers like Wal-Mart or Procter & Gamble define what's sustainable -- but there's a lot more to the equation than a typical packaging scorecard.
But the company is celebrating its 50th anniversary this year, so it took the opportunity to cooperate with the Lansing, Mich., State Journalon this long feature story.
Some highlights:
The company actually dates to the 1930s, but counts 1960 as the founding because that's when it shipped its first polystyrene foam cup.
Dart wasn't the first foam cup maker -- it had more than a dozen competitors in the early days. But the company stood apart from the rest with its own proprietary technology, and by manufacturing and distributing its cups nationwide.
Dart is "looking ahead to time when single-serving containers are made with biodegradable materials."
"We anticipate geographical growth, employment growth and product line growth, but we also see an evolution," Jim Lammers, vice president and general counsel for Dart, told the State Journal. "We look forward to getting into new technologies."
The Plastiki isn't just raising awareness of marine debris, it's also helping to publicize, and commercialize, a new composite sheet made out of recycled PET.
The Plastiki -- the boat made out of PET soda bottles that David de Rothschild is sailing from San Francisco to Australia -- managed to get a plug today for the composite sheet product.
Blogger Sindya N. Bhanoo writes that "after 38 continuous days at sea, the crew anchored at Christmas Island on April 27 for a few days' rest before the next leg, a 20- to 30-day voyage to Fiji." While the crew is in port, he traded emails with skipper Jo Royle, and put together a Q&A interview for the blog.
The plug? It comes in Royle's answer to this question: "Did you have any harrowing moments in those 38 days sailing the Pacific?"
We have arrived after sailing for nearly 40 days across some of the most remote ocean in the world with no visual fatigue in the super structure of the Plastiki. This is a great achievement for the project and proves that Seretex -- a fully recyclable self reinforced PET [polyethylene terephthalate] -- is a smart material to replace the use of more toxic and less recyclable plastics used to manufacture anything from garden furniture to bus stops to the interior of cars. The Plastiki is the first product to be built from Seretex.
Seretex didn't ring a bell with me, so I did some checking.
This web site describes it as Seretex srPET, short for self reinforced PET, "a revolutionary product that will change the way we build composite structures. This replacement for typical fiberglass/epoxy products is much safer and easier to work with. It can be made from 100% recycled content and can then be recycled again at the end of it's life. Your next tennis racket or pair of skis might be derived from drink bottles and when you are done with them recycled again into a jacket or sweater. This is the future, be part of it."
This earlier Plastics Blog post included a video that featured the Seretex material, although the story doesn't mention the material by name. The material is created by taking a polyester fabric made from recycled PET, applying heat and pressure, to create a rigid board.
I'm sure we'll hear more about Seretex after the Plastiki completes its voyage to Australia. Interesting that SmarterPlanet LLC is apparently using this eco-focused voyage to prove the durability of a recycled-content product.
The Wall Street Journal featured three start-up companies with plastics connections over the weekend: e-book company Plastic Logic, recycler TerraCycle Inc., and plastic wine closure maker Nomacorc LLC.
The trifecta features the companies in different sections -- there's no connection between the stories, just a coincidence that all three have significant plastics connections.
The Plastics Logic story is in the Journal's Technology section. The story, "First Plastic E-reader Was Fruit of Cambridge Spinoff's Labors," highlights how it took five years for the company to commercialize its plastic-circuit technology, which makes possible the company's Que Pro Reader -- the first e-reader made of plastic electronics.
The story notes that TerraCycle is in a critical stage right now. "The company's warehouses are jammed with about one billion wrappers and other garbage for which it had no big customers," the story notes, so the company "desperately needs more orders." The company is trying to ink some deals right now with big retailers like Wal-Mart.
Finally, the paper's Food & Drink section has a nice feature on Nomacorc, the Zebulon, N.C., company that's carved out a niche making plastic stoppers that compete with cork. According to the story, the company produced 1.4 billion plastic "corks" last year, and plastic stoppers now account for about 20 percent of the market. (Natural cork accounts for 69 percent, and screw caps account for 11 percent.)
The company has succeeded by applying plastics technology to the stopper market. Early plastic corks were made of solid plastic that were "difficult to insert and extract and can leave gaps around the edges that are prone to leaks." But Nomacorc succeed by making corks using two types of extruded plastics:
A firm inner core that would hold the shape of the cork and a spongy exterior that would fit better. The new corks had the feel of natural cork and were easier to remove with a cork screw, which addressed a key consumer objection. Not only that, but they could be printed to look like cork or made in fanciful colors. Nomacorc holds 30 patents on its products and the techniques to make them.
Interesting that these companies are all featured on the online.wsj.com site today. Beyond the obvious plastics connection, perhaps these stories, and these companies, do share something else in common -- the business truism that it takes time and money for new companies to get established, even when they have an innovation that seems like an obvious winner.
Today is the 40th anniversary of Earth Day, and it seems like plastics are in the spotlight more than ever this year.
Not necessarily in a bad way, either. In addition to all the stories and columns in the media that give the typical "avoid plastics" advice, I'm seeing quite a bit of coverage today that give plastics a more postive spin.
PlasticsNews.com has a story on a new plastic bag recycling awareness campaign in Florida, which included a kick-off event today with Gov. Charlie Crist. The effort will encourage consumers to reuse and recycle bags. If it is successful, it might hold off a proposal to tax and eventually ban plastic bags in Florida.
Many companies like DuPont Co. and Sunny Delight Beverages put out news releases on Earth Day to highlight what they consider to be their best environmental messages.
The most interesting Earth Day twist I spotted today comes from Greenwich, Conn., where the Time newspaper is reporting that the filmmakers behind "Tapped," a documentary that's critical of the bottled water industry, will screen their film tomorrow (April 23) in Greenwich, the home to Nestle Waters North America Inc.
Jeffery said he didn't want a screening of the film in his community to take place without having the opportunity to defend the company.
"When somebody attacks that business, the reputation we have in Maine, and blames me for the fact that recycling isn't as good as it could be in America, I'm going to fight it," Jeffery said. "We've worked very hard to do things the right way over the years. I didn't want to let this go unresponded to in my town."
Appearing in person, rather than just issuing a press release complaining about the film, is the type of move that we've come to expect from Jeffery.
Enjoy the debate, Greenwich residents, and Happy Earth Day.
New York newspapers like the idea of boosting the city's plastics recycling efforts.
PlasticsNews.com reported last week on the proposal, dubbed Local Law 19, ("NYC may accept all rigid plastics for recycling"). The proposal would be the first significant expansion to recycling in the city since the program was introduced in 1989.
Under the proposals, the city will open a new recycling facility in Brooklyn capable of accepting all rigid plastics, not just the PET and high density polyethylene containers currently accepted. In addition, access to recycling bins in public spaces will double in the next three years, and city-wide textile recycling and household hazardous waste collection programs will be offered.
Today two leading publications in New York editorialized on behalf of the plan.
The record of recycling in New York City has not been particularly impressive. Before 1989, when curbside recycling was mandated, it was left to scrappy entrepreneurs and environmentalists to collect bottles and newspapers. The new municipal program represented a leap forward, but it was surpassed long ago by other cities' efforts. Mayor Michael Bloomberg's ill-fated suspension of the recycling effort in 2002 in order to pare the budget broke the program's momentum and ultimately cost more than it saved.
New Yorkers eventually returned to the habit of recycling, but we still aren't very good at it. Our mentality, after decades of unlimited trash collection, is that government should haul off whatever is plopped on the curb, no questions asked. ...
Now the good news. The City Council has come up with a belated but welcome solution: All rigid plastics shall be recycled. Give us your tired, your poor, your Chinese takeout containers! Old socks, too. They and other unwanted clothes can be dropped into special bins to be installed citywide--a promising way to capture recyclable textiles, which make up 10% of the waste stream.
Legislation has been introduced and is expected to pass next month. We urge Mr. Bloomberg to sign it into law without too much tinkering.
Adding materials to the city's recycling load won't increase collection costs, because recycling trucks are now returning from their routes half-empty. Meanwhile, trucks collecting regular garbage will have less to pick up, so the Department of Sanitation could wring some savings out of that. But the real economic and environmental benefits will come from diverting more plastic and clothing from landfills to the recycling market. That's the kind of trash talk all New Yorkers want to hear.
The New York Daily News also editorialized in favor of adding more plastics to the city's recycling effort. The column, "Just one word: Plastics: Plan to simplify recycling sounds like a good idea," laments that "Trash recycling is one of the overbearing hassles of life in New York City: You can do plastic bottles or jugs that have a 1 or a 2 on the bottom, as long as the mouth isn't wider than the bottom. Got that? And remember, no yogurt containers!"
City Council Speaker Christine Quinn says she has a better way. Pretty much all household plastic can be recycled, Quinn says, and it can be done economically. She contends that recycling it would cost the city less than shipping it out to landfills with the waste.
The Sanitation Department says it will have to examine Quinn's proposals to see if the economies hold up. If we can recycle more while spending - and hassling - less, that's great. If not, toss the idea with the trash.
Here's hoping New York can achieve a cost-effective recycling plan that can significantly boost the volume of material that residents can recycle.
The plastics industry has long made the case that most (if not all...) plastics are recyclable. Here's an opportunity to prove it. Let's not drop the ball.
Stephen Joseph, plastic bag advocate and environmentalist
Patty Fisher of the San Jose Mercury News has discovered that Stephen Joseph, counsel for the Save the Plastic Bag Coalition and SaveThePlasticBag.com, is a quotable character.
Fisher writes in her column, "The environmentalist who wants to save the plastic bag," that she called Joseph to get "the other side" in a column that she planned to write "trumpeting the joys of life without plastic."
But the column took on a new spin after she talked to Joseph.
She discovered that Joseph seriously considers himself an environmentalist. (As I've written before, many people in the plastics industry feel that way about themselves, although that's sometimes hard for outsiders to believe.)
The difference with Joseph is that he has a platform, with the Save the Plastics Bag group, and he can come off as refreshingly convincing.
"When I was first approached by the plastic bag manufacturers, I thought it was a joke," he told Fisher.
But he felt that there were virtues to plastic bags -- yes, even environmental-related virtues, having to do with energy savings.
Joseph felt the answer to plastic-bag related litter and marine debris problems was a massive recycling campaign.
"But the environs stopped us," he told Fisher. "They didn't want to recycle them, they wanted to ban them altogether. There was this religion about it. It didn't matter what you said, they wouldn't listen."
Joseph is a quotable character, eh? We discovered that a few years ago, when Plastics News staff reporter Mike Verespej started to talk to Joseph about a plastic bag recycling project called Stripes2Stripes.
"I have never gotten involved in an industry so lacking in leadership as this one," Joseph told us at the time. "This industry has gotten so used to not being represented by a competent trade organization that it has hypnotized itself and convinced itself it is doing the right thing."
He added: "This industry needs to be better organized, fight for what it believes in, and address the problems instead of saying that it is the environmental activist's fault. But they would rather just do public relations and feel good exercises."
Joseph is up to his neck in being involved now. Is his work starting to make a difference?
While he managed to entertain Fisher, the columnist with the Mercury News, it doesn't look like Joseph converted her to side of plastics bag advocates.
Fisher writes in her column, "Joseph may be clever and passionate, but he's on the losing side of this battle. The state is forcing cities to cut down on waste that litters our waterways, and plastic bags make an easy target. Eventually, the state will ban them and we'll all be carting stuff around in reusable bags."
Thanks to Novachem blogger Frank Van Haste, who sent me a link to a post that he wrote about Fisher's column today titled "This is refreshing."
Van Haste writes: "kudos to the Mercury News' Ms. Fisher for her open mindedness and willingness to speak truth rather than parroting the conventional wisdom of the day. She still believes that the days of single-use bags are numbered, but she declines to condemn plastic bags reflexively -- good for her!"
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?
The 7.0-magnitude earthquake that devastated Haiti in January, killing 200,000 people, has left the survivors with a less serious headache, but one that the plastics industry might be able to solve: how to get rid of thousands, if not millions, of used PET bottles that once contained donated drinking water.
"The country has been destroyed and, with so many people needing aid, nobody has thought about what to do with the waste, including the PET containers," Carline Seide-Murphy, president of the Haitian Community Development Project, told Stephen Downer, Plastics News' correspondent in Mexico City, in a recent telephone interview.
HCDP is a New York-based, prize-winning environmental protection organization, comprising principally Haitian expatriates.
Seide-Murphy contacted Plastics News to ask for help in finding a PET recycler willing to collect and process the PET waste.
The Caribbean island's population, she said, has been left with "an overwhelming amount of plastics to throw away and no one seems to know what the do with them [the PET bottles]."
HCDP normally works with a Haitian recycler, but Seide-Murphy said she has not heard whether the local recycler is in a position to continue with the type of service it was giving before the quake.
"I'm waiting for a response on their status... [but] I haven't heard anything yet," she said in an email.
Downer gave Seide-Murphy the name of one PET recycler, with operations in the U.S. and Mexico, and volunteered to pass on any other information.
In 2008 HCDP was awarded the Energy Globe World Award for its efforts to clean up the environment in Port-au-Prince, Haiti's capital.
Haiti's population before the earthquake was 9.7 million, according to the World Bank.
Annie Leonard, a sustainability proponent known for The Story of Stuff project, has a new video that blasts the bottled water industry, called "The Story of Bottled Water."
The 8-minute video, posted below, tackles a few plastics-related issues. It criticizes the low recycling rate for PET water bottles, the fact that some of communities sell used bottles to overseas recyclers, and that many bottles are "downcycled" rather than used to make new bottles.
Leonard also tosses in a shot directly at the plastic bottle industry, noting that while tap water is usually safe to drink, "In many places public water is polluted, thanks to polluting industries like the plastic bottle industry."
This is a simple video with a powerful anti-plastics message. The industry -- including plastics recyclers -- might quibble with some of the facts. But this is, boiled down to the basic talking points, the argument that critics are making against bottled water.
Chemical catalysts rarely make big news, but today's an exception. In a paper published in Macromolecules, a journal of the American Chemical Society, researchers at IBM and Stanford University said they have discovered a new way to make plastics that can be continuously recycled by substituting organic catalysts for the metal oxide or metal hydroxide catalysts most often used to make the plastics.
The news is generating headlines, in part because the Associated Press and other wire services jumped on it this morning.
The Sea Life Aquarium at the Legoland Resort in Carlsbad, Calif., has a new exhibit aimed at raising children's awareness of plastic marine debris.
The project is called "Beach Trash, A Whale of a Problem." First grade classes from a local elementary school worked with environmental artist Teresa Espaniola to turn create a life-sized gray whale mosaic -- all made from plastic trash that the collected on the beach.
Megan Malaska, education specialist for the Aquarium, calls it "a life-changing project for these children. I have no doubt they will be life-long stewards of the ocean."
Hats off to the aquarium for raising awareness of this problem, starting with its young audience. Educating the public about marine debris is a key step in fixing this problem.
One city wants to educate its citizens, not ban plastics
Here's a radical idea: a sustainability committee in one California city, concerned about litter and marine debris issues, wants to start a "massive public education" program instead of banning products like plastic bags.
Commission Chair Kirstin Cattell told the Daily Tribune's Adam Jensen that the board wants to make a positive impact on the environment.
The panel decided to stress education after also considering two more onerous options: putting a fee on disposable plastic containers, or banning the products.
South Lake Tahoe is aware of the potential legal hurdles of those alternative paths, so it decided to try education instead.
The commission plans to meet March 17 to get public input on the plan.
It will be interesting to see how education works, and whether recycling plays a role.
Recyclers definitely can use more material -- that message came through loud and clear at the Plastics Recycling 2010 conference in Austin, Texas, that I attended.
I hadn't really thought of it this way before, but product bans could be a big problem for recyclers -- they need more material, not less.
Recyclers should play a more vocal role in opposition to product bans. That could raise public awareness of the fact that these products that many people want to ban are, in fact recyclable, and there's a pretty good market for them right now, in North America.
The focus is Terry's effort to minimize the amount of plastic in her life.
According to Teresa Garcia's story, Terry consumed only 3.7 pounds of plastic in 2009 -- she knows because she saved it all in a bag. That's about 4 percent of the national average of 88 pounds per person a year.
The video includes a quick list of tips for others who would like to live without plastic, such as using stainless drink containers, reusable wood utensils, metal razors, and even a glass straw.
Blog readers will recall that Terry made headlines back in 2008, when she convinced Clorox Co. to set up a system to accept used Brita water filters for recycling.
Terry also wrote a letter to the editor that Plastics News published on Feb. 22. Her letter argued in favor of plastic bag taxes and bans.
It's interesting that in the 20 years since Plastics News started publishing, the plastics critics who have been prominent in the media have changed.
It's an indication of how much plastics litter and marine debris have become local issues -- while at the same time interest has spread so quickly around the world.
PET recycling is getting a lot of media attention today, thanks to Nike's decision to use recycled polyester to make the soccer uniform shirts for all nine Nike-sponsored teams in the 2010 World Cup.
Teams from Brazil, the Netherlands, Portugal, United States, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Serbia and Slovenia all will wear shirts that are each made from up to eight PET bottles.
The news gives a nice bit of public recognition -- all around the globe -- to PET recycling. Check out these stories from London's Daily Mail, and from Fast Company magazine.
And USSoccer.com calls the jerseys the "most environmentally-friendly and technologically-advanced uniform ever produced." (I hope that will translate into an appearance in the championship game).
Does making a few dozen shirts from recycled PET have an impact on the environment? Well, don't forget that many fans will want to buy a replica shirt for their favorite team, and Nike is making those from recycled polyester, too.
According to Fast Company, that means Nike expects to use about 13 million bottles to make jerseys for fans, or about 558,000 pounds of PET.
Here's another one of those posts where you have to click through to see the photos.
The io9 blog has a photo gallery post today titled "Nothing Is Ever Junk When It Can Be Reembodied." It features the work of sculptor Sayaka Ganz,, who created beautiful horses that appear to be emerging from a wall.
When you get close to the sculptures, you realize they are are made entirely from junk plastic, like discarded packaging and foodservice ware.
Ganz had this to say about her work:
I find discarded objects from peoples' houses and give them a second life, a new home. For my sculptures I use plastic utensils, toys and metal pieces among other things. I only select objects that have been used and discarded. The human history behind these objects gives them life in my eyes. My goal is for each object to transcend its origins by being integrated into an animal form that seems alive.
The comments on the blog are also worth a look. So far, at least, there are no attacks on the plastic material -- only praise for the pieces.
Thanks to Plastics News staff reporter Rhoda Miel, for pointing out this item.
Remember the Plastiki -- the boat made out of old PET bottles that David de Rothschild plans to sail from California to Australia, to raise awareness of marine debris?
The Plastics Blog first discovered the project almost two years ago. Now, finally, the voyage is almost ready to get started.
Carl Nolte of the San Francisco Chronicle reports that Rothschild took the 60-foot-long catamaran out for a shakedown cruise on Feb. 3, and the actual voyage should get started next month, weather permitting.
Some interesting snippets from the story: the boat's twin hulls are made of 12,500 PET bottles, which are filled with dry ice.
Nolte says the boat is "no beauty," describing it as looking "like a kid's science project."
Let's hope it's sturdy enough to safely carry its 8-member crew on the long haul to Australia.
Every once in a while I come across something that's blogworthy just to share the photos. That's the case today in a post from the Treehugger.com sustainability Web site, which posted an item today headlined "Amazing House Made Entirely of Plastic Bottles from Argentina."
The walls of the home are made from 1,200 PET bottles, and its roof is made of more than 1,300 Tetra Pack cartons. It also has 140 compact disk cases in its doors and windows, 120 bottles in its couches, and another 200 bottles in a bed.
There's also a pretty cute children's play-house, also made of PET bottles.
The owner, Alfredo Santa Cruz, said he made the buildings to show the value of materials we throw away.
"Domestic waste can be transformed into useful stuff. We developed our own technique, which allows people to build a house that's perfectly functional at a very low cost and with their own hands. This is not just a project, but a reality," he said.
With Avatar breaking box-office records, USA Today's Elizabeth Weise wondered what's happening to all the 3-D glasses worn by moviegoers.
According to her calculations, about 75 percent of people who've seen Avatar saw the 3-D version, which works out to 42.1 million pairs of glasses worn so far -- and another 935,834 every day.
But there's no sustainability problem here. All four of the companies providing glasses have recycling programs in place.
Actually, in this case, reuse is a more precise term than recycle. The glasses suppliers say their products can be collected, washed and reused hundreds of times.
One supplier said they have glasses "that have been used and washed thousands of times without degradation ... There's no need to throw them away. They're very environmentally friendly."
The Earth911.com blog posted a story today on the plastics industry's role in increasing the sustainable attributes of consumer products, including packaging.
Earth911.com staffer Jennifer Berry called me last week with some general questions about what's new in plastics that consumers can expect to see in coming months. As a result, the blog quotes me a couple of times, along with Fred Roselli, spokesman for Coca-Cola Enterprises.
I'll highlight one of my points here. We chatted about various materials that plastics processors are using to meet customers' sustainability goals -- recycled-content resins and bio-based plastics, for example. I pointed out that processors are sampling a variety of materials now, and they're ready to use whatever customers -- and, ultimately, consumers -- demand.
Here's what I said:
"When I think about plastics processors changing materials, they're flexible. They can shift to what their customers want. They're willing to use recycled content, etc. It all depends on cost[,] performance and if that's what the customer wants."
I've never heard of Milly Zantow before, but according to the Wisconsin State Journal in Madison, Wis., the 86-year-old was a pioneer of post-consumer plastics recycling in the United States.
In a story posted Jan. 17, and a related video, Zantow tells how she and her friend Jenny Ehl "cashed in their life insurance policies, bought a commercial plastics grinder for $5,000 and started E-Z Recycling, what some believe was the first business of its kind in the country."
That was in 1979.
Zantow got the idea after a visit to Japan in 1978, where she saw plastics being recycled. She wondered why there were no such companies, or recycling infrastructure, in the United States.
Plastics packaging was just beginning to take off. Remember, this was before plastic bottles even had resin codes to help identify the material.
Zantow knew nothing about plastics, but she soon became an expert. She called processors in Wisconsin and discovered that they already recycled their in-house scrap.
According to the story, Zantow deserves at least partial credit for coming up with the idea for a bottle recycling code:
Zantow wanted to come up with a simple system to classify plastics, and that led to the development of the number code that identifies the polymer type.
At the urging of recyclers such as Zantow across the country, the Society of the Plastics Industry developed the numbered codes in 1988, said Tisha Petteway, a spokeswoman for the federal Environmental Protection Agency. They allow recyclers to divert the different types of plastic to specific recycling streams and now are used around the world.
Zantow didn't stay in the plastics recycling business for long. She told the State Journal that the business "never made a nickel" in the few years she ran it, and she sold it in 1982 to a Milwaukee company that folded in 1984.
It's an interesting story and video, definitely worth a look for Plastics Blog readers interested in recycling.
For the record, though, I'd like to stress that plastics recycling absolutely dates back before Zantow and E-Z Recycling, even in Wisconsin.
One such pioneer was Irv Vincent, founder of N.E.W. Plastics Corp. in Luxemburg, Wis.
Vincent founded N.E.W., a blow molder, in 1968. He branched into plastics recycling in the early 1970s, according to a profile that Plastics News published in 2003.
Who was the first plastics recycler? That's hard to say. But pioneers like Vincent and Zantow deserve credit for helping to create a sector of the plastics industry that today the entire industry depends on to buttress its sustainability claims.
This story doesn't really aim its satire at the plastics industry. The target is the public, specifically people who don't make the effort to recycle PET water bottles.
According to the inner monologue of millions upon millions of citizens, while not necessarily ideal, throwing away one empty bottle probably wouldn't make that much of a difference, and could even be forgiven, considering how long they had been carrying it around with them, the time that could be saved by just tossing it out right here, and the fact that they had bicycled to work once last July.
In addition, pretty much the entire states of Missouri and New Mexico calmly reassured themselves Monday that they definitely knew better than to do something like this, but admitted that hey, nobody is perfect, and at least they weren't still using those horrible aerosol cans, or just throwing garbage directly on the ground.
All agreed that disposing of what would eventually amount to 50 tons of thermoplastic polymer resin wasn't the end of the world.
"It's not like I don't care, because I do, and most of the time I don't even buy bottled water," thought Missouri school teacher Heather Delamere, the 450,000th caring and progressive individual to have done so that morning, and the 850,000th to have purchased the environmentally damaging vessel due to being thirsty, in a huge rush, and away from home. "It's really not worth beating myself up over."
It's evident that someone at The Onion knows a little bit about plastics -- or at least they think plastics are funny enough to merit attention. Remember the tongue-in-cheek story last year about the paper being sold to a Chinese injection molder?
Reminding readers that they should recycle PET is a good thing, and using humor might be a very effective way to get people to pay attention. Keep up the good work, Onion staffers.
The Iowa Grocery Industry Association, aware of battles over single-use bag taxes and bans around the country, is taking a proactive approach with a new program to make customers aware of plastic bag recycling opportunities.
Double the amount of plastic bags recycled over a 24-month period;
Reduce consumption of plastic bags;
Increase use of reusable bags; and
Encourage purchases of furniture and equipment made from recycled plastic through a grant program for parks and schools.
The program offers "a meaningful alternative to the banning of plastic bags, a practice that has been shown to have a number of negative unintended consequences," according to the project's Web site.
Customers are getting their first look at the program in local grocery stores this week, with a two weeks of promotions that will run statewide.
Stores are handing out bags that highlight the program, and they're also placing Build with Bags posters in the entry ways of stores near plastic bag recycling barrels.
Build with Bags is supported by the Iowa Grocery Industry Association, Keep Iowa Beautiful, Metro Waste Authority in Des Moines, Iowa Department of Natural Resources and The Des Moines Register.
Designers and manufacturers looking for ideas for making sustainable products can take some ideas from a couple of plastic products featured today in the Treehugger.com blog.
One is a rotationally molded kayak dubbed the Tequila! with an unusual feature: it can snap apart into two pieces for easy transport and storage.
Treehugger notes that the smart design "reduces the cost of buying roof racks, and their associated environmental impact on fuel economy and carbon emissions."
Similarly, the Eco Board surfboard from Imagine is touted for its sustainability, both for the materials selection and the design.
On the materials side, the boards are made from recycled polystyrene, laminated with a stretch bamboo cloth.
In terms of design, the surfboards come in two pieces that snap together -- again, doing away with the need to put them in a car roof rack. (Treehugger notes that putting a sports toy on a car roof cuts the car's fuel economy by up to 27 percent.)
Interesting how these two sporting goods manufacturers are using some pretty conventional plastic materials -- polyethylene and polystyrene -- to make products that they can promote as being ultra-sustainable.
This could be the ultimate in design-for-recyclability: a team of students from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute have designed a teddy bear made entirely from PET.
The toy, dubbed the "Sustain-a-Bear," recently won first prize in the 2009 Manufacturing Student Design Competition held by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
Instead of stitching it together, this politically correct bear is designed to be assembled using ultrasonic welding.
"This lack of adhesives and stitching, paired with the fact that the bear is stuffed with scraps of the same fleece from which its exterior is made, means a Sustain-a-Bear at the end of its days can be tossed in the recycling bin and easily find a second life as brand-new bear. (Or maybe a soda bottle.)," the release says.
The group is pursuing full patent protection, with an eye toward eventually commercializing or licensing the product.
"The teddy bear market is huge, and despite all the billions of dollars of sales every year, no one has really looked into manufacturing stuffed animals in a sustainable way," said mechanical engineering doctoral student Christina Laskowski, who was part of the team.
"It's hard to know what to do with old teddy bears, because they're difficult to clean, they get damaged when you wash them, and they usually end up in a landfill," said Todd Snelson, another doctoral student who was part of the team. "We wanted to make a bear that didn't end up in landfills, something that still had utility at the end of its product life."
Remember seeing 3D movies with flimsy cardboard glasses? If that's your recollection of 3D movies, get ready for some big changes.
Today's 3D glasses are made of plastic and cost as much as $50 each. Movies like Avatar are making the glasses popular. Right now there are four companies fighting for a share of the market, according to this story from The New York Times.
The players:
RealD, which makes disposable glasses (the company touts them as being recyclable) that cost about 65 cents each, according to the NYT report;
MasterImage 3D, which offers both single-use and multiple-use glasses (the company says the single-use glasses can be washed and reused several times;
Dolby Laboratories, which makes higher-tech glasses that cost about $28 each; and
XpanD, which makes glasses that "use battery-powered LCD shutters that open and shut so each eye sees the appropriate frame of the movie," according to the story. Those glasses cost up to $50.
The companies that make these glasses expect 3D movies won't just be a flash in the pan that will disappear once Avatar has its run in the theaters. They expect Hollywood will keep making 3D movies, in order to lure customers away from their big-screen home screens to experience something special.
Which product and technology will win? Expensive glasses that viewers will want to use over and over? Mid-range products that the theaters can collect and clean for multiple uses? Or single-use disposable/recyclable glasses?
Sustainability may play a role in this debate, but I expect the best technology -- not necessarily the most environmentally friendly product -- will eventually win.
Is anyone in the federal government working on cleaning up the Great Pacific Garbage Patch? Yes, according to The Washington Post -- and the point person is Holly Bamford, director and chief of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Marine Debris Program.
NOAA's Marine Debris Program has set up 160 projects since Bamford came on board in 2005. In one, bins are provided at 16 East Coast ports where fishermen can dispose of their gear at no cost.
She told the newspaper, "... once we present our research on the degradation caused by litter and debris on our seafloors, on our beaches, and in our waterways, people will be more inclined to reduce, reuse and recycle a non-degradable item, which in turn reduces marine debris."
Coca-Cola's new PlantBottle -- a PET bottle made in-part from plant feedstocks -- is about to hit the store shelves. Scott Vitters, Coke's global head of sustainable packaging, gave an interview about the material to Marc Gunther, a senior writer for GreenBiz.com.
Here are a few of the highlights:
The PET resin in the bottles is made from 30 percent plant-based material, and Coke's R&D teams are to make the remaining 70 percent from renewable sources, too.
The material currently is made from sugar cane and molasses, a byproduct of the sugar production process, from Brazil. Vitters said the material is "not perfect, but the commitment from the Brazilian government, the growers down there ... enabled us to be able to get started with this process, as we look toward a long-term vision of using plant waste material."
The company has proven in the lab that it is technically feasible to make bottles from 100 percent plant-based resin.
The PlantBottle resin costs more than conventional PET, but for now the company is not charging customers a premium price. Eventually, the company expects to bring down the cost of the plant-based resin.
Vitters put it this way:
" It's largely driven because of an unoptimized supply chain. ... Long term though, we believe we can drive that price down through improving the supply chain, as well as ongoing work to look at plant waste materials, and increasing our use of recycled materials."
Littering has decreased by 61 percent in America during the past 40 years, but the amount of plastic litter is actually up 165.4 percent, according to a study released today by Keep America Beautiful Inc.
Is it any wonder that there's public pressure to ban or tax plastic bags and polystyrene foodservice products, and to place deposits on PET water bottles and other beverage containers?
KAB touts the new study as the largest litter study ever conducted in the U.S., and the first major national survey of litter in the U.S. in 40 years.
Despite the perception that plastic is the top litter problem, the study found that it is actually No. 3. Tobacco products are the biggest problem, accounting for 37.7 percent of all litter, and paper products are No. 2 at 21.9 percent.
Plastic accounts for 19.3 percent of litter, followed by metal at 5.8 percent and glass at 4.5 percent.
But the big problem is that plastics' share of the litter pie has exploded.
Since 1969, paper litter has dropped 78.9 percent; metal litter is down 88.2 percent, glass is down 86.4 percent -- but plastic is up 165.4 percent.
There's a good explanation for the increase, of course -- the amount of plastic packaging used in the U.S. over the past 40 years has skyrocketed (up 340 percent per capita). Much of the gains by plastics have been at the expense of metal, glass and paper packaging.
So, naturally, researchers are going to find more plastic in litter today than in 1969.
Some more highlights from the report:
Litter conservatively costs our nation $11.5 billion per year. These are direct costs, including cleanup and prevention programs.
There are also major indirect costs: including decreased commerce, tourism, and health effects. A significant problem: decreased property values. 93 percent of homeowners, 55 percent of real estate agents and 90 percent of property appraisers said a littered neighborhood would decrease their assessment of a home's value.
The study said there are at least 51.2 billion pieces of litter on roadways in the U.S.; an average of 6,729 pieces of litter per mile.
The study concludes that education and cleanups work, as does investing in trash receptacles.
It called for boosting the nation's recycling infrastructure (only 12 percent of public spaces surveyed had recycling receptacles), and funding is needed for education programs, volunteer programs and infrastructure.
Crates and pallets used to transport soda bottles and milk are apparently popular with some thieves, but the legal authorities in Maryland are on the case.
According to severalreportstoday that are very likely to be picked up in other news media, Prince Georges County State's Attorney Glenn Ivey and representatives from a Coca-Cola bottler and a Baltimore bakery today announced the indictment of five people suspected of stealing the containers from retail and industrial businesses.
Allegations of milk crate banditry aren't new -- I had a similar blog post back in 2007.
Just like the last time, the authorities in Maryland say the alleged thieves were selling the pallets and containers to overseas recyclers, who grind them and use the plastic to make new products.
The authorities claim that nearly $10 million in losses from plastic pallet theft have occurred in Maryland in the past year.
Really? $10 million in stolen plastic pallets? Sold to apparently unsavory overseas recyclers?
This just sounds too much like a bad script for "CSI New York."
Recycling foodservice polystyrene products offers some unique challenges. The light weight of the PS foam is one of the biggest stumbling blocks, and so is contamination.
I remember interviewing the some leaders of the now-defunct National Polystyrene Recycling Corp. back in 1992. One told me that NPRC had spent $60 million between 1988 and 1992 to set up and promote its PS recycling infrastructure, and yet it had only managed to recycle about 35 million pounds of material.
Not exactly a great return on investment.
So I'm not surprised to see this story from the Oakland Tribune today, reporting that GB Industrial Materials Corp., the only company in the Fremont-Union City area to collect plastic foam for recycling, will no longer allow people to make drop-offs at its Union City plant.
"People leave all the garbage bags in our parking lot and on weekends. Many times we come in in the morning and are like, 'What is that?,'" owner Christina Liu told the newspaper. "We are short-handed. This is very labor-intensive work."
GBIM Corp. specializes in importing and exporting thermoplastics, including both virgin and recycled material.
The company wasn't alone -- the story points out that other companies that recycle PS foam are in Oakland, Redwood City and Stockton. Plastics Newshas written stories about successful PS recycling programs, as has our sister newspaper Waste & Recycling News. (Herearea few).
But with PS bans spreading across California (24 California towns and two counties have banned PS takeout packaging), the news that a drop-off program in one community is scaling back is bad news for the foodservice packaging sector.
The Automotive Division of the Society of Plastics Engineers today announced the finalists for its 39th-annual Automotive Innovation Awards Competition.
Maria Ciliberti of Ticona Engineering Polymers, and chair of the awards program, said despite the challenging year for the auto sector, the contest attracted more than 50 nominations, with entries that can be found on commercial vehicles produced on four continents -- North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia.
"Clearly, there is no shortage of innovative automotive-plastics applications being commercialized right now," she said in a news release. "Polymeric materials continue to bring value to molders, tier integrators, OEMs, and the ultimate customer -- the consumer."
Category and the event's Grand Award Winner will be announced on Nov. 12 during the Automotive Innovation Awards Gala in Livonia, Mich.
Here is a list of the finalists, by category, courtesy of SPE:
CATEGORY: Body Exterior
LOW-PROFILE OUTER-BELT WEATHERSTRIP DESIGN
OEM: Ford Motor Co.
Make/Model: 2010MY Ford Taurus Sedan
Tier Supplier/Processor: Cooper Standard
Material Supplier: ExxonMobil
Material: TPV
Process: Tri-Layer Extrusion
Description: These outer-belt weatherstrips are the first to provide a low-profile, tri-extrusion with stainless steel, TPV, and a high-gloss vinyl ionomer. The manufacturing process envelop was pushed to the maximum to satisfy the Taurus design theme, achieving a functional component that offers three different textures (low-gloss, high-gloss, and stainless) in the same part.
GLASS-RUN WEATHERSTRIP CORNER MOLD OVERLAYS
OEM: Ford Motor Co.
Make/Model: 2010MY Ford Taurus Sedan
Tier Supplier/Processor: Henneges / ITW
Material Supplier: DuPont Automotive
Material: 16.5 percent-GR PA 6/6
Process: Injection Molding
Description: These door glass-run weatherstrip corner mold overlays are an industry first, providing gloss and appearance differences to the glass seals while helping guide the glass properly into the top seal. A simple part that solves a big problem in an elegant way, the plastic glass-run corner mold overlays offer improved appearance and customized craftsmanship for window surroundings while ensuring a good seal.
EXTERIOR SPOILER WITH INTEGRATED CHMSL ASSEMBLY
OEM: General Motors Co.
Make/Model: 2009MY Cadillac CTS Sport Wagon
Tier Supplier/Processor: ABC Group
Material Suppliers: SABIC Innovative Plastics
Material: PC/ABS (with proprietary nanofiller package)
Process: Injection Molding
Description: Highly dimensionally stable, this thermoplastic Class A horizontal body panel meets stringent gap requirements by managing a low coefficient of thermal expansion (3.9) while also maintaining heat, impact, and surface quality for a highly aesthetic application. The center-high-mounted stop light (CHMSL) is also integrated in this first-surface part.
HEADLAMP BEZEL
OEM: Ford Motor Co.
Make/Model: 2010MY Ford Taurus Sedan
Tier Supplier/Processor: Ford ACH Lighting - Sandusky
Material Suppliers: SABIC Innovative Plastics
Material: PC (with metallic-pigment package)
Process: Injection Molding
Description: The inclusion of a special metallic-flake pigment package in the resin matrix for this application eliminated the need for paint while delivering improved styling aesthetics in an as-molded part.
CATEGORY: Body Interior
TUFTED PET AUTOMOTIVE CARPET - BODY INTERIOR
OEM: GM Holden
Make/Model: 2010MY VE Commodore Sedan
Tier Supplier/Processor: Futuris Automotive Interiors
Material Supplier: Not stated
Material: Recycled PET
Process: Fiber Spinning
Description: For the first time, tufted PET carpeting has been used in an automobile. Containing 20 - 80 percent post consumer recycled content, and with the option to use 100 percent recycled PET, this tufted carpet meets or exceeds all major OEM carpet performance specifications, is 12-15 percent less expensive than traditional tufted nylon, and provides a sustainable solution.
PLASTIC POST-ISOLATION FOR AUTOMOTIVE HVAC BLOWER MOTORS
OEM: General Motors Co.
Make/Model: 2010MY Chevrolet Camaro Sportscar
Tier Supplier/Processor: Delphi
Material Supplier: Spartech Polycom
Material: 20 percent talc-filled PP
Process: Injection Molding
Description: This application uses an integrally molded plastic mount instead of multiple rubber isolators that softens and quiets HVAC fan-motor vibrations, resulting in significant reductions in cost and development time plus a quieter vehicle interior for consumers. A resonant frequency "tuning" feature allowed for noise/vibration/harshness (NVH) optimization even late in the vehicle-development cycle with minimum impact on mold tooling. Now bare motors can be purchased, allowing more motors to be shipped per container, and a quick snap-fit joins the plastic mount to motor, facilitating assembly.
MOLD & FOLD CLUSTER ATTACHMENT BRACKET
OEM: Ford Motor Co.
Make/Model: 2009MY Ford F-Series Pickup Truck
Tier Supplier/Processor: Automotive Components Holdings
Material Supplier: ATC
Material: 20 percent Talc-Filled PP
Process: Injection Molding
Description: Using "negative space" in the tool, this mold-&-fold cluster attachment bracket provides a mounting surface for the instrument panel's cluster without the necessity of adding an additional part. Cluster attachment locations are integrated into the IP substrate tool and the "molded-in hinge" is then folded into place. This allowed the styling team to maximize the size of register openings and the cluster lens by minimizing the design space between them.
LIGHTWEIGHT ACOUSTICAL HEADLINER BASED ON SOY FOAM
OEM: Ford Motor Co.
Make/Model: 2010MY Ford Escape HEV & Edge and Lincoln MKX CUVs
Tier Supplier/Processor: Magna (Escape) & International Automotive Components (Edge)
Material Supplier: Woodbridge Group
Material: Polyurethane (with 10 percent-Bio-Based Polyol)
Process: Not stated
Description: Lightweight, open-cell acoustic foam based on polyurethane chemistry with some soy-based polyols (replacing petroleum-based polyols) were used in this application, which also featured permeable thermoplastic adhesives and permeable felt fabrics in the headliner construction. The result is industry-leading noise/vibration/harshness (NVH) performance and lower weight
CATEGORY: Chassis & Hardware
ELECTRIC POWER STEERING FLEXIBLE COUPLING
OEM: Fiat S.p.A.
Make/Model: 2010MY Fiat 500 Compact Car
Tier Supplier/Processor: Nexteer Automotive / Forteq
Material Supplier: DSM
Material: Heat-Stabilized, 50 percent-GR PA 4/6-
Description: This flexible plastic coupling for the vehicle's electric power steering replaced a similar stainless steel coupling with broached splines and grease. The part features ribs that connect and transfer torque from one rotating shaft to another, which in turn strokes axially and stretches and compresses the coupling. The fully complient constant-velocity joint eliminates torsional lash, the need for grease, and all sliding interfaces at a cost savings, while reducing audible interior cabin noise and improving steering "feel." The system replaces traditional hydraulic systems, reducing weight 17 percent, cost 50 percent, and increasing fuel economy by 4 percent. System performance and customer satisfaction were also improved.
LOAD-MANAGEMENT STRIKER CAP (LMSC)
OEM: General Motors Co.
Make/Model: 2009MY Cadillac CTS V-Series Luxury Sedan
Tier Supplier/Processor: Delphi / Ammex Plastics
Material Supplier: BASF
Material: TPU
Process: Injection Molding
Description: When styling opted to add larger wheels/tires well into program development, this small thermoplastic urethane (TPU) load-management striker cap was designed to increase energy absorption by 74 percent and reduce loads on shock towers by 14 percent. This improved vehicle ride without the need to add extra structure to the body/chassis vs. standard nylon striker caps with a metal ring alone. The 43-g, high-elongation TPU part has a "springboard" effect designed in so it improves vertical impact management, leading to lower trim capability, better structural survivability, better energy management (via ride and handling), and enabling additional content (new wheels/tires) without adding significant cost or mass.
BELOW-BELT DOOR-GLASS RETAINING BRACKET
OEM: Ford Motor Co.
Make/Model: 2010MY Ford Taurus Sedan
Tier Supplier/Processor: Henneges
Material Supplier: Dow Automotive
Material: PA 6/6
Process: Injection Molding
Description: These nylon 6/6 below-belt door brackets are an industry first, replacing steel channels. The plastic channels will not ding the door outer panel during installation and provide quiet window-system operation, while also reducing weight 50 percent and cost 20 percent.
CATEGORY: Environmental
RADIATOR END TANK FROM RENEWABLY SOURCED MATERIAL
OEM: Toyota Motor Co
Make/Model: 2010 Toyota Camry Sedan
Tier Supplier/Processor: DENSO Corp.
Material Supplier: DuPont Automotive
Material: PA 6/10 (with monomer from caster bean oil)
Process: Injection Molding
Description: This is the first use of bio-plastic in a chemically aggressive and mechanically demanding application - in radiator end tanks. Roughly 40 percent of this new nylon 6/10 material is sourced from caster bean oil, reducing reliance on petroleum-based inputs and helping lower the vehicle's carbon footprint.
WHEAT-FILLED PP FOR QUARTER TRIM BIN
OEM: Ford Motor Co.
Make/Model: 2010 FordFlex CUV
Tier Supplier/Processor: International Automotive Components
Material Supplier: A. Schulman
Material: Wheat-Straw-Reinforced PP
Process: Injection Molding
Description: This is the auto industry's first use of renewable (and locally sourced) wheat-straw filler for storage-bin components. This natural-fiber-reinforced PP offers greater dimensional stability than unfilled resin and is more sustainable than talc-filled PP.
HALOGEN-FREE WIRE COATING
OEM: General Motors Co.
Make/Model: 2008MY GMC Yukon, Chevrolet Tahoe, & Cadillac Escalade SUVs
Tier Supplier/Processor: Delphi
Material Supplier: SABIC Innovative Plastics
Material: PPO
Process: Extrusion
Description: Flexible, halogen-free, PPO resin for wire insulation provides an environmentally friendly alternative to PVC and cross-linked HDPE. The durability and low specific gravity of the material enables thinner insulation and jacketing, allowing comparable performance to be achieved in less packaging space and at lower weight.
CATEGORY: Materials
MOLDED-IN-COLOR METALLIC INTERIOR-FINISH PANELS
OEM: Ford Motor Co.
Make/Model: 2010MY Ford Mustang Sportscar
Tier Supplier/Processor: Ford Motor Co. / Summit Polymers
Material Supplier: SABIC Innovative Plastics
Material: PC/ASA
Process: Injection Molding
Description: Molded-in-color metallic finish PC/ASA replaced painted PC/ABS in this Injection-molded application, eliminating paint for greater sustainability while meeting tough weathering, scratch/mar, and low-gloss requirements. Optimized gating strategies and a modified pigment package were essential to minimize flow disruptions that can lead to dark streaks in molded metallic parts where flow-fronts converge. The result is the industry's first metallic-finish interior-trim panel, which is greener, increases customer satisfaction (by eliminating paint-related defects), and provides a $2.30 USD/vehicle cost savings
DOOR PANEL FROM NATURAL-FIBER PREG COMPOSITE
OEM: BMW
Make/Model: 2008MY BMW 7 Series Luxury Sedan
Tier Supplier/Processor: Dräxlmaier Group
Material Supplier: BASF AG (resin) / J. Dittrich & Söhne GmbH (fiber mat)
Material: Acrylic Copolymer
Process: Compression Molding
Description: This lower door-panel inner was compression molded from a new, high-performance, lightweight, cost-effective, and green composite. The resin matrix is a unique acrylic polymer that is thermoplastic in its "B-stage," allowing for production of prepreg/semi-finished rollstock or blanks, yet cross-linking at temperatures above 120C to produce a very durable thermoset. The resin's high wetout of natural fibers and ability to form chemical as well as mechanical bonds to the reinforcement allows for production of composites with very-high fiber loadings - 70 percent in this application - yielding lightweight parts with high stiffness in thin walls. The resulting panel saves weight and cost, significantly reduces VOC emissions, and its rapidly renewable natural fiber needled mat reduces the vehicle's carbon footprint without sacrificing performance.
LONG-GLASS-PP FIRST-SURFACE CONSOLE SIDE PANELS
OEM: Ford Motor Co.
Make/Model: 2010MY Lincoln MKT CUV
Tier Supplier/Processor: Automotive Components Holdings
Material Supplier: Ticona Engineering Polymers
Material: 20 percent Long-Glass PP (Pelletized)
Process: Injection Molding
Description: This is the largest molded-in-color, long-glass PP part with a Class A surface out of the tool for a premium vehicle to date. The precolored and textured part is 100 percent color-matched, has no glass read-through, and offers higher stiffness than talc-filled PP and lower cost than ABS, while also eliminating the need for squeak & rattle countermeasures, saving $6 per vehicle.
CATEGORY: Performance & Customization
THERMOFORMED FULL-SIZE CARGO VAN PARTITION & CONSOLE
OEM: Various
Make/Model: 1985-2010MY Ford Astra & E-Series, Chevrolet Express & GMC Savana Cargo Vans
Tier Supplier/Processor: Chameleon 2000 / Advantage Plastics
Material Supplier: Primex Plastics
Material: Reprocessed ABS
Process: Thermoforming
Description: This large, thermoformed ABS partition and console closes off space between front and back of cargo vans, reducing workload on HVAC units, keeping exhaust fumes from the passenger compartment, and protecting passengers from flying or falling objects that could enter the passenger compartment from rear cargo space. The console provides a work surface between front seats, holding laptops, phones, and paperwork, and rear-accessible storage allows large parts to project into the underside of the console from the rear cargo hold. This application saves 100 lb vs. steel partitions while eliminating rust, quieting the passenger compartment, adding more functionality, and allowing significantly faster installation, making it ideal for fleet vans. The unit is fully recyclable and uses recycled material.
ILLUMINATED DOOR-SILL INSERT USING SINGLE-LED LIGHT ENGINE
OEM: Ford Motor Co.
Make/Model: 2010MY Ford Mustang Sportscar, Lincoln MKZ & Ford MKT Sedans
Tier Supplier/Processor: Innotec Group
Material Supplier: Altuglas, SABIC Innovative Plastics, Serigraph
Material: ABS Bi-Laminate, Polycarbonate, & Acrylic
Process: Multiple
Description: Combining several different plastic technologies to create highly efficient optics that require only one LED light source, this illuminated door-sill insert can easily be customizable (via laser etching) to produce high-impact illuminated graphics. The system's unique construction allows the design to be adapted to new vehicles in weeks, not months, significantly reducing development costs. In addition, the application is the auto industry's first to provide multi-color illumination from a single LED light engine.
HIGH-TEMPERATURE CORED-CARBON COMPOSITE AIR SPLITTER & DIVE PLANES
OEM: Chrysler Group LLC
Make/Model: 2010MY Viper ACR Supercar
Tier Supplier/Processor: Prefix / Plasan Carbon Composites
Material Supplier: Evonik
Material: High-Temperature Epoxy
Process: Hand Layup / Autoclave Cure
Description: A unique carbon composite with a special high-density, high-temperature core capable of surviving autoclave temperatures and pressures was used to produce an extremely thin, lightweight, precision air splitter and set of dive planes for the 2010MY Viper ACR supercar. The splitter is adjustable and produces extremely high downforce resistance of 1,000 lb without deflecting more than 0.25 mm at 180+ mph. A fast-cure, UV-stabilized grade of clear epoxy resin (with visible carbon fiber weave on the surface) brings autoclave cycles down to an average of 10 min. The aerodynamic package went from concept to production in just 12 month.
CATEGORY: Powertrain
BLOWMOLDED INTERCOOLER AIR DUCT IN PPS WITH JECTBONDING
OEM: Volkswagen AG
Make/Model: 2008MY Volkswagen PQ35 Platform
Tier Supplier/Processor: Röchling Automotive Leifers GmbH
Material Supplier: Ticona Engineering Polymers
Material: Glass-Reinforced PPS
Process: Hybrid Injection/Blow Molding
Description: This is the first time glass-reinforced PPS has successfully been blow molded. The complex part was formed by a unique patented hybrid injection/blow molding process called Jectbonding, which allows functional elements to be injected against the parison during expansion, forming a chemical bond and yielding a robust part with a clean joint vs. welding the element to the part in a secondary step. Two different grades of glass-reinforced PPS were used. The process eliminates two previous production steps and provides extremely high repeat accuracy; high-performance PPS resin provides dimensional stability and outstanding mechanicals in high-temperature, chemically aggressive environments with cost and weight reductions.
PLASTICS-INTENSIVE FLUID FILTER MODULE
OEM: Daimler AG, Mercedes Car Group
Make/Model: 2010MY Mercedes C-Class Compact Executive Sedan
Tier Supplier/Processor: Mahle Filtersysteme GmbH
Material Supplier: Lanxess
Material: 35 percent-GR PA 6/6
Process: Injection Molding
Description: This fluid module filters engine oil and cools it via cooling liquid. The cooling unit is fully integrated into a new plastic housing that provides 38 percent weight and 16 percent cost reduction and reduces pressure losses for higher engine efficiencies. The 35 percent-glass-reinforced nylon 6/6 shell covering the cooling unit serves to stiffen the filter housing against oscillation. A plastic hose replaces rubber for further cost savings.
OIL PAN OPTIMIZED FOR STONE IMPACT
OEM: Ford Motor Co.
Make/Model: 2010MY 6.7L Power-Stroke Turbo Diesel
Tier Supplier/Processor: Dana
Material Supplier: BASF
Material: Impact-Modified, 35 percent-GR PA 6
Process: Injection Molding
Description: This is the first plastic oil pan designed for full exposure to the road environment and optimized to withstand road chemicals and stone impacts thanks to a new material / ribbing configuration. An impact-modified 35 percent-glass-reinforced nylon 6 provides excellent impact strength even at -40C and is not affected by calcium chloride thanks to a proprietary modification package. A special waffle-design ribbing pattern can handle multiple impacts (unlike earlier plastic designs with sacrificial ribs). Another unique aspect of this oil pan is that it features the first plastic drain plug, which sports a cam-lock design that makes it impossible to over-torque and break the plug's screw threads. The oil pan is 2.1-lb lighter than the steel pan it replaced and 30 percent less costly. It has an noise/vibration/harshness value similar to that of cast aluminum and quiet steel, yet will not rust or corrode and provides better protection against stone impact than metal designs
HIGH-FEATURE V6 RIGHT & LEFT-BANK TIMING-CHAIN TENSIONER ARMS
OEM: General Motors Co.
Make/Model: GM HFV6 Engines
Tier Supplier/Processor: Cloyes / Mayfair Plastics
Material Supplier: DSM
Material: Unfilled & 50 percent-GR PA 4/6
Process: Injection Molding
Description: This application features the first thermoplastic timing-tensioner arms, which replaced cast aluminum. The parts meet high-performance engine dynamics and sustain chain tensions up to 3,000 N. A heat-stabilized, 50 percent-glass-reinforced grade of nylon 4/6 provides high strength and stiffness at 140C. It also offers extremely high fatigue resistance at elevated temperatures, extreme wear resistance at pivot and tensioner piston interfaces, long-term property retention in oil, impact strength, dimensional stability, and a low coefficient of linear expansion, plus high knitline strength at the pivot. A separate unfilled nylon 4/6 wear surface is also used. The system provides 30 percent cost and 20 percent mass savings vs. previous metal designs, eliminates the need for a hardened-metal wear pin, eliminates 5 machining operations/part, provides tooling savings of $200,000 USD/year, and is quieter.
CATEGORY: Process / Assembly / Enabling Technologies
TWO-SHOT INVISIBLE PASSENGER-SIDE AIRBAG DOOR
OEM: Hyundai Motor Co.
Make/Model: 2009MY Hyundai i20 Supermini Car
Tier Supplier/Processor: Hyundai-Mobis / Hyundai-Motor Co.
Material Supplier: Multibase Co.
Material: TPO (door) & Talc-Filled PP (IP substrate)
Process: Twin-Shot Injection Molding
Description: This soft, seamless passenger airbag (PAB) door is integrally molded into a hard instrument panel substrate using a simultaneous twin-shot molding process and two grades of olefins: talc-filled PP for the IP and a TPO grade for the door itself. This system provides a simple, uncluttered appearance and color harmony while eliminating fit & finish issues and providing improved cold-temperature impact strength. Both design and materials optimization was required for success and the final system - which is covered by seven tooling and materials patents - provides better performance at a $5 cost and 500-g weight reduction, while significantly reducing molding and assembly operations.
AUTOMOTIVE PLASTIC-CASE RADIO WITH INSERT-MOLDED EMC SHIELDING
OEM: General Motors Co.
Make/Model: 2009.5MY ChevroletTahoe/GMT900 Family
Tier Supplier/Processor: Delphi E&S
Material Supplier: MRC
Material: Reprocessed 16 percent-GR PC/ABS
Process: Insert Injection Molding
Description: This application features an innovative, patented method of embedding EMC shielding into an environmentally friendly plastic case, enabling significant reduction in weight and assembly time. A metallic-mesh Faraday cage is insert molded into the reprocessed 16 percent glass-reinforced PC/ABS material. The design also enables the use of slide lock & snap lock design features that speed assembly while, eliminating the previous sheet-metal case and 29 screws. The resulting unit provides significant weight reduction, assembly cost & time savings, with improved physical and EMC shielding and a more sustainable product.
MOLDED IN FAUX STITCHING WITH NEAR-PERFECT APPEARANCE
OEM: Ford Motor Co.
Make/Model: 2010MY Ford Taurus Sedan
Tier Supplier/Processor: Ford Motor Co. / Automotive Components Holdings
Material Supplier: BASF
Material: Polyurethane
Process: Spray Polyurethane
Description: The realistic appearance of a hand-wrapped leather insert with French and Coach seams was achieved on this door panel using a single-piece molded spray polyurethane part without need for separate operations. The realistic appearance of leather stretching, bunching, and stitching is achieved via a silicone mold cast from leather originals. Each of the vehicle's four door panels retains its own unique bunching and stretching pattern, yet each panel is absolutely repeatable vehicle-to-vehicle. The result is a $50 USD/vehicle cost savings, better quality, perfect repeatability, and greater durability.
CATEGORY: Safety
GENUS FOLDING HEAD RESTRAINT
OEM: Kia Motors
Make/Model: 2010 MY Kia Sorento CUV
Tier Supplier/Processor: Gill Industries / Sturgis Molded Products
Material Supplier: BASF
Material: PA 6
Process: Insert Injection Molding
Description: This is the first folding-headrest system for stowable rear seats that is fully compliant with new FMVSS 202A and EC standards. The integrated system makes use of toughened, glass-reinforced nylon 6 to reduce overall part count by 50 percent, lowering weight by 2.5 kg, and simplifying manufacturing and installation.
PEDESTRIAN PROTECTION BUMPER-REINFORCEMENT EA SYSTEM
OEM: Ford Europe
Make/Model: 2009MY Ford Kuga Compact CUV
Tier Supplier/Processor: Plastal Germany
Material Supplier: SABIC Innovative Plastics
Material: PC/PBT
Process: Injection Molding
Description: An innovative energy absorber (EA) design mounted on the grille-opening reinforcement instead of cross-car beam enabled this vehicle to be the first in the SUV class to meet tough European pedestrian-protection requirements for lower-leg impacts, eliminating the need for a separate EA in front of the bumper beam. An unfilled PC/PBT resin was used to injection mold this EA/upper reinforcement, providing best-in-class performance and allowing for the vehicle's aggressive styling due to a reduction in packaging space.
PEDESTRIAN-PROTECTION-COMPLIANT FRONT FENDER
OEM: Ford Motor Co.
Make/Model: 2008MY Ford Kuga Compact CUV
Tier Supplier/Processor: Montaplast
Material Supplier: SABIC Innovative Plastics
Material: MPPE/PA
Process: Injection Molding
Description: This is the first SUV with thermoplastic fenders that meets tough European pedestrian-protection requirements for head impact in a single part, eliminating the need for secondary bracketry under the fender as in steel designs. The MPPE/PA material is online paintable, dent and corrosion resistant, a unique styling enabler, and reduces both weight and cost by 50 percent vs. steel. The vehicle was also able to qualify for a better insurance rating because of this innovation.
What's your company's carbon footprint? How about your suppliers' footprint, and your customers'? That's not a front-burner issue for most North Amerian plastics processors -- yet -- but it's getting a lot of attention in Europe.
Let's look at a couple of recent columns that touch on the subject.
First, Carl Mortished of The Times in London writes about how Western Europe is losing heavy industries -- including resin manufacturing -- in part because of efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
"Billions of dollars of potential investment in heavy industry, notably refining and petrochemicals, is moving east in search of lower costs -- and carbon trading is making the money drain flow faster," Mortished writes.
"The popular prejudice in Britain is that chemicals is a sunset industry, an embarrassing industrial legacy that soon will be buried by the service sector and some fanciful 'green manufacturing,' powered on alternate Wednesdays by windmills. For decades our government has condoned this nonsense, but the truth is that chemicals is big business for Europe. The European Union runs a huge trade surplus in chemicals, €37 billion in 2007 -- more than €70 billion, if you include pharmaceuticals.
"Unfortunately, the surplus is gradually shrinking. Asia, which for many years was a net importer of chemicals, is now in balance and is moving into surplus. China, with the assistance of American and European petrochemical companies, is building plant to satisfy domestic demand. In the Middle East, meanwhile, they have been building export industries -- manufacturing bulk plastics and oil products for export to Asia and to Europe. They are building scale while we are shrinking."
Mortished laments that Western Europe will still need chemical products in the future, but instead of making them locally, they'll be buying them from "an Indian manufacturer fuelled by a dirty coal or diesel generator [that] ... can sell his plastics at rock-bottom prices in the EU."
He adds: "We still need the products, but someone else will make them, out of sight and out of mind."
Chris Smith, editor of our sister publication European Plastics News, addresses a different carbon dioxide-related issue in an opinion column that Plastics News reprinted in its Oct. 12 issue.
Smith notes that "an increasing number of plastics producers and users today are boasting that their products are made from renewable sources or contain renewable material. The question is: What exactly does this mean? And what should it mean?"
One problem, Smith says, is that companies are focusing too much attention at the renewable or bio-based content of their materials.
"Focusing on material content alone overlooks the energy used in production. Is a polymer made from renewable resources using non-renewable energy necessarily better than one made from non-renewable resources using renewable energy? And what of recycling? Focusing on the source cannot differentiate between virgin and recycled material.
"These are difficult issues to resolve. We need clear standards to ensure that manufacturers' environmental claims can be validated. But those standards must inform rather than misinform -- we cannot expect every consumer to read the small print."
Smith and Mortished each raise some issues that are important to the long-term future of the global plastics industry. Some within the industry already doubt that the answers to the questions will favor petrochemical-derived plastics.
Now here's the "reuse" part of the recycling circle. Kid in Malawi creates his own windmill for wind generating to power lights, water pump and other electronics by creating his own windmill out of scrap parts, including making blades from PVC pipe.
Here's an excerpt from the story:
The plan was to attach blades to the back axle of a bicycle and generate electricity through a bike dynamo. When the wind blew the blades, the sprocket and bike chain would spin the bike wheel, which would charge the dynamo and send a current through wire to the house.
For windmill blades, Kamkwamba slit a bathhouse PVC pipe in two, then heated the pieces over hot coals to press the curled edges flat. To bore holes into the blades, he stuck a nail through half a corn cob, heated the metal red and twisted it through the blades. It took three hours to repeatedly heat the nail and bore the needed holes.
He then attached the long plastic blades to the shorter metal blades of a large tractor fan found in a dumpyard, and stripped out the piston from a large shock absorber to serve as the windmill shaft. To secure the plastic blades to the metal ones, he used proper nuts and bolts. But standing in for washers were 16 Carlsberg beer bottle caps, collected from outside the Ofesi Boozing Centre.
The post, titled "Recycling Plastic: What a Waste," ties together a couple of issues -- concerns about chemicals including bisphenol A and phthalates, and litter-related issues including marine debris.
I thought it was worth sharing the column so Plastics Blog readers can see what she thinks of industry efforts to fight plastic bans and taxes by pushing for more recycling:
The [American Chemistry Council] spends millions to defend the chemicals produced by their members to make plastics. They have hired the same advisors who defended the tobacco industry to formulate a strategy to promote and defend the petrochemical industry. If measured by the difficulty in passing legislation to curtail SUPs [single-use plastics], and the positive press generated on the issue of plastic recycling, the strategy seems to be working.
At the center of ACC's strategy is its promotion of recycling as the solution to plastic pollution. This band-aid approach allows the industry to look environmental while continuing with business as usual, making SUPs out of virgin -- not recycled -- petrochemicals. The ACC knows well that only 5-7 percent of plastics are recycled, and that this figure will probably not grow substantially.
However, SUPs, the majority of plastics, are not designed to be recycled. Instead, SUPs are designed and promoted to be used on the go, and to be dumped whenever and wherever their contents are consumed. Even if SUPs are discarded into a recycling container, they are often contaminated by food waste and rendered unsuitable for recycling, or made of a type of plastic that have no recycling infrastructure. Spending relatively little on promoting recycling plastics offers a big public relations payoff with no real threat to an industry that earns billions pushing SUPs as the foundation of our throw-away consumer culture.
The ACC also knows that even if more plastics are recycled, there is not a big market for recycled plastic. It is usually cheaper for manufacturers to use virgin petrochemical material. Furthermore, the downgraded recycled by-product is routinely sent overseas to China, where it may also end up in a dump or incinerated, after the most recyclable fraction is "cherry picked" out. In short, recycling will never put the ACC members out of business.
Boyle calls ACC's effort a "cynical strategy." Her description sounds awfully cynical to me. There is a big, healthy market for recycled plastics (North American recyclers often complain that they can't get enough raw material). Recycled plastics are rarely more expensive than virgin resin.
I agree that recycling won't put ACC members out of business -- but is that really the goal? There's a place for virgin resin, and a place for recycled resin. Often the materials compete. Sometimes I'm frustrated when I see virgin resin win markets that seem natural for recycled plastics. But that's a matter of consumer preference, not chemical industry conspiracies.
Boyle didn't say this, but I will -- some industry-sponsored efforts to boost recycling have been too weak. But the plastics industry doesn't deserve all of the blame for standing in the way of good ideas like bottle deposits. Grocers, soft-drink companies and water bottlers have been the roadblocks.
That's another column ... but perhaps it's time for ACC and others in the industry to realize that plastics will continue to shoulder the blame for litter and marine debris problems because the plastics industry hasn't done enough to push its customers to take more responsibility for single-use disposables.
The column concludes by urging readers to refuse to use single-use plastics. Boyle writes: "Instead, bring your own shopping and produce bags to the market. Use reusable bottles. Bring your own containers for take-out or ask for non-plastic disposable packaging."
Nothing wrong with that. In fact, some consumers seem to be catching on to the "use less stuff" lifestyle -- just check the latest trends in bottled water sales for proof.
Project Kaisei, one of this summer's missions to study the plastics vortex in the Pacific Ocean, is on the way back to California.
Dennis Rogers, a marine educator who has been blogging from the trip, notes that he saw "exactly what I expected to see: the plastic was about in the concentration that credible media had reported."
I've seen beautiful sunrises give light to shocking areas of plastic accumulation, held handfuls of plastic particles filtered from the surface of the ocean, and shared the simple joy of sailing while storytelling with ocean enthusiasts from around the world. You do not need to sail to the middle of the Pacific to know what to do about plastic in our oceans, in our streams, and on our shores, but sailing to it makes the message even more compelling.
Most people reading this blog know the personal solution already; Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. Many of us have found new ways to live with less stuff; how to make things last; and how to properly dispose of what we use. If you have done this, you know that we are all works in progress and that it's only with constant attention to details that one can succeed. On the other hand, how do you make a whole culture pay constant attention? It seems that, while we've been chanting, "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle," somehow our throwaway culture has marched forward unaware.
I share his frustration, and I'm sure many Plastics Blog readers do, too. As I've pointed out before, many people in the plastics industry consider themselves to be environmentalists. They may have a bias toward plastic products, but that's understandable. Plastics offer many advantages to the sustainably minded: energy efficiency and light weight (which saves on transportation costs) are in the forefront, but so is recyclability.
But now there's so much plastic floating in the Pacific Ocean that, in a single summer, we have multiple scientific missions exploring the problem. Something must be done to get more people to change their behavior. They've got to start to recycle, or at least properly dispose of plastic waste. If they don't, the problem will keep getting worse, and the industry will face more solutions that it finds distasteful -- bans and taxes.
So the question is, how best to change human behavior, and discourage the throwaway culture that Rogers laments? I hope his voyage helps, and I applaud him for focusing attention on the problem.
Some pundits seem to think it a case of the American Chemistry Council throwing a million dollars in advertising at the city and duping the voters.
Others say it was an ill-conceived proposal that voters -- even in Seattle, a city with a reputation for support for environmental causes -- couldn't stomach.
I thought it would be fun to share some opinions from a variety of sources:
Frankly, Seattle, a plastic bag fee is a no-brainer, and it is proven to work. The cost is low enough to be a nominal dent in your wallet, and the fee can simply and easily be avoided with a few reusable bags. The arguments against it--the cost, the "wrong approach," fear of misused funds--just seem flimsy.
There are some things Europe just does better, and sometimes this has to do with perceived "rights." Americans believe they have a right to a free bag. Here, when it comes to the environment--be it car emissions, closing the center of a city to traffic, or plastic bags--the laws are just passed. Because these small changes are for the greater good.
It was a costly and unnecessary tax. ... I think you saw Seattle voters saying this was not the right approach to protecting our environment.
Adam Parmer of the Coalition to Stop the Seattle Bag Tax FromThe Seattle Times
Residents clearly expressed that a tax was not the way to go. The message it sends to us is that consumers value plastic bags and have rejected the idea of paying a fee for something they value and already use responsibly.
Steve Russell, vice president of plastics for the American Chemistry Council fromPlastics News
It wasn't the American Chemistry Council but the stable poor and newly unemployed taking an unsustainable hit in the current economic downturn who decided this was one tax/fee too many. What used to be chump change now gets us through the day. The mayor and his advisors targeted hapless users of the reusable plastic and paper totes instead of requiring manufacturers of toxic carryalls to come up with an eco-friendly product. The mayor hoist himself on his own petard by his arrogant disdain for the people with no voice. He never stepped up to the plate in defense of Jane and John Doe paying increasingly higher costs of food, rent and public transportation, failure to oversee due maintence of the infrastructure and suffering massive job losses. He dessicrated entire neighborhoods by confiscating private properties for a monorail that never was and ignored the voters who trekked to the polls four times to support the project. It's time the grinch who stole Christmas exit the stage gracefully.
I didn't see much of a campaign myself [in favor of the proposal]. And when it became visible, it was whining about the petrochemical industry. It seems like at the end, it was more about who was opposing it than dealing with some of the issues raised.
Political consultant Blair Butterworth fromThe Seattle Times
Nanny legislation, in all forms and at all levels, is a pernicious evil and must be eliminated.
It is not the government's responsibility to manage the lives of its citizens. If I choose to use canvas bags, or if a grocer opts not to offer plastic/paper, that is my (or their) choice.
Although this may be an important societal issue, I see no reason to codify it in law. Not everything has to be a law.
I count this as a win for the big, polluting plastic and chemical companies. All this claptrap about hurting the poor is a ridiculous argument. If you're poor, how many bags full of groceries are you going to be buying in the first place? Even if you have five bags, that's an extra buck. Big deal.
I don't know why the city council didn't just ban plastic bags and leave it at that. They overplayed their hand by putting the fee on paper, too. Paper is at least a renewable resource, and it's much less environmentally destructive.
Oh, well. We use canvas bags anyway. I'm just sorry to see the outcome of this vote.
Latest problem for plastics -- it doesn't last forever
All along we've been reading about how plastic marine debris will float in the ocean for centuries, killing wildlife and causing havoc.
Now the latest problem is that the plastic won't last forever -- it's degrading faster than scientists expect, and the chemicals being left behind will kill more wildife and cause more havoc.
The news comes from a widely-covered speech by Katsuhiko Saido, a chemist at Nihon University in Chiba, Japan, who led a team of scientists that looked at the marine debris problem. Saido spoke this week at a meeting of the American Chemical Society in Washington.
According to a report from National Geographic News, the team collected ocean water samples from around the world and found that they all contained derivatives of polystyrene.
The toxic compounds the team found don't occur naturally in the ocean, and the researchers thought plastic was the culprit.
The scientists later simulated the decomposition of polystyrene in the sea and found that it degraded at temperatures of 86 degrees Fahrenheit (30 degrees Celsius).
Left behind in the water were the same compounds detected in the ocean samples, such as styrene trimer, a polystyrene by-product, and bisphenol A, a chemical used in hard plastics such as reusable water bottles and the linings of aluminum cans.
The National Geographic News version of the story is one of the more complete that I've seen. It notes that water temperatures in much of the ocean are much cooler than 86 degrees Fahrenheit.
A few weeks ago, if someone had told me that scientists had discovered that plastic marine debris was breaking down in the ocean, I would have thought that was good news.
Apparently I would have been wrong.
Really, the best solution to this problem is to stop creating marine debris in the first place -- and to work toward a solution to clean up what's already out there.
National Public Radio's "All Things Considered" is doing a series this month called "How green Is It?," which is taking a closer look at things Americans are doing because they believe they help the environment.
On Friday, the focus was on reusable bags, which some grocery chains -- and some communities -- are encouraging shoppers to use instead of the traditional paper or plastic.
To start, environmental consultant Catherine Greener points out the differences among reusable bags.
Last year, Wal-Mart started selling a black bag that was made entirely from recycled bottles. Now, it offers a cheaper blue bag that is thinner and uses less plastic. On the other hand, however, only a third of the plastic in the new blue bag is recycled. And, it lasts only about half as long as the black one.
"I think we are living in the land of confusion right now as we migrate through what is less bad into what is truly good," Greener says. "This is an evolving and a moving target."
That's a problem with lifecycle analysis. In the end, deciding what's best requires some assumptions. What should manufacturers optimize? Carbon footprint? Recyclability? Recycled content? Not everyone is going to agree.
In the end, deciding between paper, plastic and resusable bags isn't going to make a lot of difference for the environment, according to Bob Lilienfeld, editor of the Use Less Stuff report (which touts lifecycle impact studies on its home page).
In the big picture, he says, the big fuss around shopping bags is really just a distraction.
"The bag is not the environmental bogey-person that everybody thinks it is," he says. "If you look at the entire grocery package that you bought, the bag may account for 1 to 2 percent of the environmental impact.
"The other packaging may account for 7 percent. Ninety percent is accounted for by the products you buy. That's where all the environmental impact is."
Thanks to blog reader Andrew Peacock for pointing out the NPR story. He called the report "refreshingly balanced." Let's watch the "How Green Is It?" series for more plastics-related topics.
We're in the heart of "voyage to the garbage patch" season now, with a couple of missions finally underway aimed at studying the plastic soup in the Pacific Ocean that has become a focus of attention for the global marine debris problem.
One effort, called Project Kaisei, is aimed in part at determining "how to capture the debris and to study the possible retrieval and processing techniques that could be potentially employed to detoxify and recycle these materials into diesel fuel."
The Kasei team has been blogging about its trip, and a recent post notes an emphasis on investigating whether the plastic debris can be recycled.
Since one of the mission's objectives is recycling, we welcomed a donation from the Brussels-based Bureau of International Recycling (BIR); one of two principal donors of the project. Recycling marine debris would contribute to both cleaning up the ocean and delivering even more recycled resources. We look forward to working with local and international recyclers on innovative ways to repurpose marine debris.
Our biggest contribution came from an anonymous individual, who is a lifelong environmentalist and innovator. It is people like this who, with our Project Kaisei team, are putting forth the effort to change the world for the better.
Can the plastic vortex be captured and recycled? That seems like a pretty big undertaking. Assuming it is theoretically possible, can it be practical? Maybe so, if you take into account not just the energy and effort necessary, but also the importance of the ocean and marine life.
I recall a debate back in 1992 -- long before the plastic marine debris problem became widely known -- where an environmentalist cited plastics as a growing source of marine pollution. Someone from the plastics industry shot back that the problem was not limited to plastics -- but that plastics were visible because of their density.
In other words, plastics float, while other trash sinks.
He was right, but that didn't make the plastic marine debris problem go away.
Let's hope that the Kaisei team discovers a cost-effective solution to this problem.
In the meantime, the attention focused on marine debris will continue to keep legislative pressure on the industry, as more communities consider restrictions, bans and taxes on plastic bags and polystyrene takeout packaging.
If one company uses recycled content to make a product, and another makes the same product out of a bioplastic, which item is more sustainable?
It's a matter of opinion, of course. But until now, my opinion -- or yours -- was just as as valid as any other.
Starting July 16, there will be a new standard.
That's when Wal-Mart Stores Inc. will unveil its long-awaited sustainability index, which will use life-cycle assessment to to measure the environmental impact of all the products it sells.
This will likely have major impact on some plastics markets, including packaging and housewares.
But keep in mind that the changes have already started to occur in those markets, since Wal-Mart has been talking about sustainability with its suppliers for several years.
Are biodegradable plastics a "silver bullet, silver lining, or none of the above?" That's the question the Environmental Protection Agency plans to address in a July 16 Webinar, "Biodegradable Plastics: From Cradle to Cradle."
("North America's largest plastic event" might have been a better title, or "One of the world's largest plastic events." But that's OK. Their point is that NPE is big, which is true.)
The report quotes SPI's Lynne Harris saying that NPE's Business of Plastics Conference featured sessions of interest to Earth911.com readers, including sustainability, energy efficiency, biopolymers and recycling.
It also quotes Sandra Keil, Earth911's vice president of government and industry affairs, who shared some thoughts about what she saw at the show:
Before attending NPE2009, I thought I understood plastics. I left with more questions than answers. After strolling the Expo Hall for two days, I spoke with those who make molds, machines, the actual plastic polymers, the preforms, plastic recyclers and even the company that makes a small plastic lining that is inserted into plastic bottles to keep the carbonation from escaping those sparkling beverages.
I used to believe that plastics were organized nicely into #1-7, but the catch is, there are now seven types of #2 plastic. What? My first thought was, 'how will that affect recycling?' What makes these seven plastic #2's different from one another? Can all seven types of #2 plastic be recycled together or will it create serious contamination?
On Thursday, I was fortunate to participate in a panel discussion headed by EPA that addressed ways to improve plastics recycling. The audience asked questions regarding the benefits of regulation, standardizing collection in the U.S. and following successful models of European countries.
All great thoughts and questions, yet plastics are evolving faster than we can set up programs for recycling. We benefit immeasurably with all the advancements in plastics, yet we are also deceiving ourselves that we can continue this habit of discarding this incredibly valuable material. My hope is that as plastics continue to advance, so will our commitment to plastic recycling.
Keil may have been surprised to learn that there are many types of No. 2 plastic (that's high density polyethylene, for readers who don't speak the language of recyclers). But that's not new -- recyclers have been dealing with different resin grades for decades.
Still, she seems to have a positive attitude about plastics. And her commitment to plastics recycling is a plus. I'm glad she had a chance to come to NPE and learn more about the industry.
Andrew Winston, a nationally recognized expert on green business, says he heard the sound of "taps" being played for the plastic shopping bag last week.
Since so much of the plastics industry's efforts have gone into fighting legislative initiatives against plastic bags, it's interesting to note that Winston thinks that retailers' decisions to reduce bag use are just as significant.
Winston writes on The Huffington Post blog today about a meeting that he attended in Brazil with Wal-Mart Brazil and all of its suppliers. The meeting wasn't just about plastic bags -- it was a wide-ranging discussion of Wal-Mart's sustainability goals.
He notes that the company used the meeting to unveil a big national campaign, in cooperation with the Brazilian government, to drastically reduce plastic bag use. Wal-Mart's goal is to reduce bag use 50 percent by 2013. In Brazil, they are participating in an television ad campaign featuring a popular musician with the slogan "Saco E um Saco," which translates as either "A bag is a pain in the butt" or "A bag sucks."
"Either way, it's a funny, yet aggressive way to get people to stop using these things," Winston notes. "All companies should take note of this kind of coordinated effort by governments and other companies -- imagine what happens if your product, manufacturing process, or sourcing strategy ends up on the societal bad list."
"Bags are not the only products facing this kind of challenge -- it's happening to bottled water as well. But nothing compares to the coordinated global attack on plastic bags. Once your product is declared a pain in the butt, where do you go from there?"
The Baltimore Sun newspaper editorialized today against a proposed 25-cent tax on plastic and paper grocery bags, arguing that it "smacks of a tax on the poor in the middle of a recession."
The column notes that the proposed tax is deliberately high to encourage residents to buy and use reusable bags instead of single-use bags.
The Sun thinks encouraging residents to recycle bags is a better idea.
Baltimore should take steps to reduce the number of disposable bags its residents use. The city should encourage merchants to give a rebate to people who bring their own bags, and officials should amend Baltimore's single-stream recycling program so that it, like some suburban counties, accepts bundles of used plastic bags. The city should also require that all grocery stores have recycling bins for bags.
It is certainly unsightly to see plastic bags blow in the breeze, get caught in tree branches or float through the Inner Harbor. But that's not a good enough reason for Baltimore to lead the nation in enacting what could become a significant and regressive tax increase.
USA Today's Open Road blog today reports on the growing use of bioplastics in the automotive industry -- a trend we've been following for some time.
It's nice when the mainstream press discovers a story like this, although I have to note that blogger Chris Woodyard couldn't help but make a joke at plastics' expense:
In the lexicon of famous oxymorons, the auto industry about to add another: ecological plastics.
Before too long, expect it to rank right up there with jumbo shrimp and military intelligence.
Har.
Woodyard cites the soon-to-be-introduced Lexus HS 250h hybrid luxury car as an example of a heavy user of bioplastic, noting that "about 30 percent of the car's interior and trunk will be covered in this newfangled plastic that will help make the car 85 percent recyclable."
Readers seem shocked by the news today that Achim Steiner, executive director of the U.N. Environment Programme, on Monday called on all countries to immediately take steps to ban single-use plastic bags.
His comments came with the release of a report on the growing global problem of marine litter.
"Some of the litter, like thin film single use plastic bags which choke marine life, should be banned or phased-out rapidly everywhere -- there is simply zero justification for manufacturing them anymore, anywhere," he said in a news release. "Other waste can be cut by boosting public awareness, and proposing an array of economic incentives and smart market mechanisms that tip the balance in favor of recycling, reducing or re-use rather than dumping into the sea."
The 234-page report (warning: it's a huge file) notes that plastics are the main ingredient in marine debris:
Plastic - especially plastic bags and PET bottles - is the most pervasive type of marine litter around the world, accounting for over 80 per cent of all rubbish collected in several of the regional seas assessed.
Plastic debris is accumulating in terrestrial and marine environments worldwide, slowly breaking down into tinier and tinier pieces that can be consumed by the smallest marine life at the base of the food web. Plastics collect toxic compounds that then can get into the bodies of organisms that eat the plastic. Global plastic production is now estimated at 225 million tons per year.
What does this mean? Well, it is a kick in the gut for a sector of the plastics industry that was feeling pretty good after some recent victories in efforts to stop bag bans.
Steiner's comments, and the UN report, generated a ton of headlines around the world. That's going to contribute to the public perception that plastic bags are clogging landfills and trashing the oceans.
A former bag company owner emailed some interesting these thoughts on the issue today. He notes that the global bag-ban trend is fed by plastics' negative public perception. He blames plastics industry leaders who "led the industry into the world-wide public image toilet" by failing to devote the necessary resources to education and image-building efforts.
This is an incredible situation - a "UN", fergodsake, world-wide ban on single-use plastic bags.
Regardless of one's ups and downs (assuming it hasn't yet been fatal), it's always comforting to think your professional work has made at least a few contributions to your industry and to the world, greater or lesser, in addition to building your own cash reserves. Abject "plastic product stewardship", to use their euphemism, has resulted in thousands of people being blasted as having spent their entire career - and many family fortunes - damaging the world to a greater degree. What wasted lives and assets so many of us committed to that unseen, unintended and ridiculously-accused result.
No one should foolishly find comfort in not being a "single-use bag producer" today. "Single-use plastic everything" is next.
That's a sobering thought, and it may be close to the truth. There's an anti-plastics bias that's evident -- supporters of the ban would tell you that it's warranted -- because Steiner isn't calling for a ban on all single-use bags -- just the plastic ones.
Looking for the latest in technology related to sustainability, recycling, and other hot topics? NPE2009 will offer free 20 minute presentations on a variety of topics in the Technology Theater area at the West Hall.
Is your company prepared for threats from terrorism and global pandemics? Want to hear about how the U.S. Army is focusing on polymer innovations in food packaging? Do you want to be part of the industry's Plastics Ambassador Program, designed to educate and mobilize individuals to bring postive messages about plastics and plastics recycling to your communities?
These are a few of the topics that will be covered at the Technology Theater. Many others are more specifically focused on products and services offered by NPE exhibitors.
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has dropped his proposal to place a 5 cent tax on plastic bags, according to severalnewsWeb sites.
Council Speaker Christine Quinn opposed the plastic bag fee, telling the mayor that the majority of council members would not support legislation that they thought would be seen as a sales tax on food.
Will that attitude carry over to other communities where local mayors and councils are considering bag taxes?
Tarheels to make throwing away plastic bottles illegal
Starting Oct. 1, it will be illegal to throw away plastic bottles in North Carolina.
According to this story in the Elizabeth City, N.C., Daily Advance, the law will prohibit disposal of rigid plastic containers. Scott Mouw, environmental supervisor for the state Department of the Environment and Natural Resources, told the newspaper that the state expects a huge environmental payoff, in addition to economic benefits. By collecting more HDPE and PET, local recyclers will benefit, as well as the state's plastics processors.
Mike Verespej, Plastics News' staff reporter who covers recycling, talked to Mouw for some stories recently, too. In our recent special report on recycling, Verespej's sources noted that the market for HDPE is "a little bleak" right now, while PET is experiencing an uptick.
I enjoyed some of the reader comments on the Daily Advance story. One reader suggests that the government pay people to go to the dumps and sort trash for recycling. Wouldn't it be easier collect them in a recycling bin, rather than digging through a landfill?
This is the first day that the city of Toronto is requiring stores to charge customers a nickel each for single-use plastic bags.
With all the debate about bag taxes in New York and various cities in California, Toronto's city council passed and implemented its bag tax pretty quickly. The original proposal was to give shoppers a 10-cent-per-bag discount to those who brought their own reusable bags.
The city wants to cut by 70 percent the 460 million plastic bags used in Toronto per year by 2012.
For those of you in Toronto who plan to avoid the 5 cent tax by using reusable bags, don't forget not to use the same bags for food that you use for diapers and gym clothes.
It turns out that reusable bags can be a breeding ground for potentially scary stuff: bacteria including E. coli and Salmonella, plus mold and yeast.
The researchers noted that using reusable bags as a multi-purpose tote -- something it saw from the majority of bag owners in this study, is a big concern, "particularly if the reusable bags are used to transport gym equipment or diapers. Gym equipment may carry drug-resistant Staphylococcus aureus strains, skin infecting dermatophyte fungi and other dangerous microorganisms."
Among the conclusions: drafting of protocols on the hygienic use of reusables, including suggestions for regular replacement of reusable bags.
My first thought, before reading the entire report, was that consumers can avoid all the hazards of reusable bags (often made of nonwoven polypropylene or other polymers) by simply washing their bags regularly. But the study notes:
Reusable bags can in principle be cleaned, but drying them out thoroughly is problematical and their flimsy nature deters scrubbing that would remove organic deposits. Any imperfect cleaning would tend to add water to incompletely removed food
material and thus inadvertently boost microbial growth.
Serious consideration needs to be given to a microbiologically adequate cleaning protocol for such bags. At very least, if people do choose to wash their bags, it is critical that they not lay them flat to dry but instead turn them inside out and suspend them in order to properly air them out. This will avoid the creation of a moist habitat for bacteria, mold and yeast. Consideration should also be given to replacing the reusables regularly to avoid the whole issue of bacterial build up.
Some critics may dismiss the results of this study because it was commissioned by CPIA, which you might assume could be trying to cast doubt on the safety of reusable bags in order to slow the avalanche of taxes and bans on plastic shopping bags.
But the trade group notes that it "strongly supports reduction and reuse, and recognizes use of reusables as good environmental practice, but it does not want to see these initiatives inadvertently compromise public health and safety."
So there you have it. Go ahead and use reusable bags to tote your groceries. But don't use the same bags for food that you use to carry your gym clothes or dirty diapers.
And, for goodness sake, wash them once in a while, dry them carefully, and don't continue to use them to carry food after they get dirty and gross.
Nestle Waters North America and other bottled water companies have filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in New York to stop the state from implementing a deposit law on water bottles.
Nestle Waters CEO Kim Jeffery released a statement that said in part: "We believe the best ones encourage recycling of all containers, do not hurt consumers and do not favor special interests. The New York bottle bill fails all three tests. Moreover, the new law is unconstitutional, and we need a sound foundation if we are going to build a lasting and effective recycling program."
The company also highlighted opposition to the N.Y. deposit by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who owns a small bottler called Keeper Springs.
The bottlers have a point about drinks being treated unequally under the law, since it covers water but not sports drinks. Still, their cries that they support recycling, but oppose deposits, come across as hollow.
About a year ago, I posted an item about Coca-Cola Co.'s thoughts about bioresins. Fast forward to today, and it's apparent that Coke has made quite a bit of progress in just 11 months.
This morning, Coke introduced a new bottle made a blend of conventional and bioresin materials that it dubbed the PlantBottle.
Up to 30 percent of the resin used the in bottle is made from PET sugar cane and molasses as feedstocks.
According to Coke, bottles made from the blend "can be processed through existing manufacturing and recycling facilities without contaminating traditional PET."
"This innovation is a real win because it moves us closer to our vision of zero waste with a material that lessens our carbon footprint and is also recyclable," said Scott Vitters, director of sustainable packaging for Coke, in a news release.
Coca-Cola North America will pilot the PlantBottle with Dasani and sparkling brands in select markets later this year, and with vitaminwater in 2010.
No. 6: Given a choice between paper and plastic bags, go with paper. Fact: From a standpoint of carbon emissions, they're equally bad. Plastic is worst from a solid waste perspective. (But plastic is a littering problem in many places.) Most environmentally friendly of all, as you already know, is bringing your own resusable bags [which is, admittedly, easier if you aren't buying groceries for a family of four].
and,
No. 9: Buy milk in paper or glass cartons if you have the choice. Fact: Because half-gallon plastic milk jugs use much less material, they have lower life-cycle greenhouse-gas emissions than glass or paper containers of the same size.
Judy Lowe of The Christian Science Monitor's Bright Green Blog challenged Zeke Hausfather, executive vice president of energy science at Climate Culture, to share the science behind the "myth" claims.
Here's what he had to say. Regarding paper vs. plastic bags, he said: "Paper and plastic bags both require comparable amounts of energy per bag for production, given that paper bags are considerably more massive than plastic ones, though paper bags are slightly preferred. Data on lifecycle carbon emissions for paper and plastic are taken from FRIDGE: Socio-economic impact assessment of the proposed plastic bag regulations. Other reports argue that paper bags have higher lifecycle GHG emissions, though methodologies and analysis boundaries differ across reports."
The Chicago Tribune has a feature story today on how the horticulture industry is trying to "green up" the way it uses plastic products, including trays, flats and pots.
The story notes that "Growers, big-box stores, manufacturers and garden centers are under pressure not just from more environmentally conscious consumers, but from the zooming prices of oil and natural gas -- the raw materials of plastics. Though a substantial proportion of the plastic resin that goes into the larger, sturdier pots is recycled from other sources, not much of that gets reused or recycled again. Most goes to landfills."
But talks are underway to fix the problem. This week the American Nursery & Landscape Assocation is discussing a proposal to make recycling easier by standardizing and limiting the sizes of pots and the materials used to make them.
According to the story, one of the industry's goals is to produce a biodegradable pot that could be planted directly into the soil.
That's certainly possible today -- but I doubt that consumers will be eager to pay a premium for such products.
Thanks to Pete Fehrenbach, managing editor of sister newspaper Waste & Recycling News, for alerting me to this story.
Here's a proposed law related to plastic bags that the industry might support. Madison, Wis., Alderman Judy Compton and Mayor Dave Cieslewicz on Tuesday will propose banning the disposal of clean, recyclable plastic bags.
According to this story in the Wisconsin State Journal, soiled bags could still be thrown out. But if citizens throw away a clean bag -- instead of recycling it -- they could receive a $100 fine for a first offense, $200 for a second offense and $400 for third and later offenses in a year.
"It's a matter of putting our money where our mouth is on environmental issues," Compton told the newspaper. "It's really a simple thing."
She would prefer to ban bags -- a la San Francisco. But Compton offered this proposal instead, as a compromise, because she doesn't want to penalize residents who like using plastic bags. (Some people really do... really.)
Madison doesn't plan to create a trash cop who will inspect everyone's garbage, looking for offenders. But it will make it easier for residents to recycle bags. The plan calls for investing in new drop-off recycling sites.
This is an interesting idea. It should boost bag recycling, which is pretty pitiful in most communities. It also allows people who like reusing plastic bags to do so without being penalized (assuming they don't litter, of course). That's a plus for dog owners.
Will the plastics industry actually support this idea, with its roots in the liberal hotbed of Madison? I don't see any reason why not.
NewScientist.com has an interesting story today about boosting the power output of biodiesel by adding polystyrene cups to the fuel.
The story notes that Iowa State University mechanical engineers dissolved PS into biodiesel at concentrations ranging from 2 to 20 percent PS by weight.
"A polystyrene cup will dissolve almost instantly in biodiesel, like a snowflake in water," said Song-Charng Kong, a co-author of the study. She noted that PS does not break down as well in petroleum-based diesel nor in other liquid fuels.
Tests in a tractor engine showed that as PS concentrations increased to 5 percent, power output increased at approximately the same rate.
"Turning plastic into fuel is a way to get rid of garbage and generate electricity," Kong said.
If researchers can figure out a way to burn the material more completely, and thus reduce unwanted emissions, this could be an interesting way to recycle PS waste -- at least some of the cleaner stuff.
Forgive the headline on this post -- I'm not advocating beating up anyone. But blog reader Sam Longstreth at Brentwood Plastics Inc. in St. Louis felt a bit like he was reduced to that last week, when he wrote a letter to the editor of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch responding to an Earth Day column written by a high school student.
Liz Godar, a junior at Villa Duchesne High School and a member of the Interschool Ecological Council, wrote the April 22 column that started the debate, headlined "The plastic bag is not a harmless necessity." Here's an excerpt:
Plastic bags are more than they appear. The consequences of this oversight are severe and at this point, no longer can be ignored. Plastic bags are made largely through petroleum, increasing the United States' already overwhelming dependency on foreign oil. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the United States uses about 320 billion plastic bags and sacks each year.
Perhaps the worst effect is their catastrophic environmental consequences. Plastic bags account for 10 percent of the waste built up along the U.S. shoreline and kill thousands of birds and marine animals each year, from seals to turtles to dolphins. These bags break down into even more toxic petro-polymers that then work their way into our food system. Not only are billions of these soon-to-be-toxic waste bags floating around in our waterways and oceans, but they will take 500 years to disappear completely.
While plastic bags are recyclable, fewer than 1 percent actually are recycled. Even so, the recycling process is extremely economically insensitive. According to the San Francisco Department of the Environment, processing and recycling a ton of plastic bags costs about $4,000, and the new recycled material will then be sold in the commodities market for a pathetic sum of $32.
The column goes on to push for consumers to reject plastic bags, with praise for various communities that have passed bag taxes or bans.
That didn't sit well with Longstreth, president of Brentwood Plastics, a St. Louis-based film extruder.
Longstreth wrote this reply to the newspaper:
It is apparent that Villa Duchesne does not teach chemistry prior to the second semester of the junior year, otherwise it is probable that Miss Godar would not have regurgitated the pernicious nonsense she is being taught by the Interschool Ecological Council. Had she taken chemistry, Miss Godar would be able to figure out that high density polyethylene, the product that she finds so dangerous, is chemically inert. In other words, it does not react with other chemicals. That's why, if she had taken chemistry, she would know that the statement that polyethylene "bags break down into even more toxic petropolymers" cannot be defended.
I hate to break this to Miss Godar at the tender age of 17, but she should not believe everything the government tells her. The San Francisco Department of Environment's price of $32 per ton for post-consumer polyethylene is so far off the mark that it makes anyone who purchases polyethylene burst into laughter. I will buy every ton Miss Godar can find at $32, I'll even pay the freight.
Bans are emotionally satisfying quick answers to complex problems. But do bans work? If you ban alcohol, will people not drink? If you ban abortions, will women not get them? If you ban guns, will people not kill each other? If you ban plastic bags, will people not litter?
Longstreth is a rare breed these days. He's a plastics industry executive willing to stick his neck out and comment, with his name attached, on a news report that he felt was unfair.
How the media played ACC's bag-recycling announcement
Plastic bag makers and the American Chemistry Council made a pretty big announcement yesterday -- a pledge that they intend to use 40 percent recycled content in plastic carryout bags by 2015, including 25 percent post-consumer material.
They say the move will save enough energy to heat 200,000 homes.
Seems like a natural for news reporters looking for Earth Day stories, right? I thought I'd check into how the story is being played.
USA Today gave the industry side, along with some views of opponents:
"It's annoying. And it's transparent," says Kathleen Rogers, president of Earth Day Network. "The death knell has sounded for plastic bags. They're just trying to continue to make a bad thing."
The Natural Resources Defense Council agrees: "We don't want people to use disposable bags. We want people to use reusable bags," says Darby Hoover, a senior research specialist.
Management consultant Pam Murtaugh says the Earth Day gambit will backfire. "They're late to the party of good sense. In bragging about it now, they're only building their own glass house."
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer noted that one local environmentalist gave the plan a somewhat lukewarm endorsement:
"Forty percent as a target six years from now is a very positive step," said Heather Trim of People for Puget Sound, one of the groups pushing for the 20-cent per bag fee in Seattle. "But a turtle choking on a plastic bag doesn't notice if the bag is recycled."
Trim said people in Seattle should avoid using plastic bags altogether. "That's why we have this (proposed) green fee. The sentiment of Americans is turning away from plastics."
The comments sections of both stories, as usual, feature a pretty healthy debate on the pros and cons of plastic bags.
(And yes, I noticed that someone named "Clear Perpsective" kicked off the discussion on both sites with identical responses. Would "Clear Perspective" care to identify him/herself on the blog?)
Overall, I'm surprised that the story didn't get more attention today. Perhaps it will be wrapped into more Earth Day coverage in tomorrow's headlines.
According to the Christian Science Monitor's vote blog, Limbaugh also announced today that he will personally see to it that he destroys two acres of rain forest.
"What else am I going to do for Earth Day?" he asked. "I'm going to have every one of my cars driven as much as possible today; I've got my airplane flying to Los Angeles and back; ... all the lights are going to be on, the air conditioning down to 68 degrees in all, well, four out of the five houses -- the property manager in [the fifth house] likes the temperature down to 65 degrees."
Probably not the image the plastics industry was hoping for today. Thanks anyway, Rush.
The American Chemistry Council is taking another stab at using social media to start a dialogue on plastics issues, with its second Blog Summit. The new summit went live today, and the topic is a focused on plastics, "Too Valuable to Waste."
Participants in this go-around include Sharon Kneiss, ACC vice president of products divisions and blog moderator, plus Bill Carteaux, president and CEO of the Society of the Plastics Industry; John Frederick, executive director of the Professional Recyclers of Pennsylvania Recycles; Blaire Pollock, solid waste planner of Orange County, N.C.; Anne Johnson, director of the GreenBlue Sustainable Packaging Coalition; Billy Jones, general manager of Salvage America; John Lively of Preserve Products; Patty Moore, president of Moore Recycling; Rachelle Strauss, blog author from MyZeroWaste.com; Amanda Wills, assistant editor of Earth911.com; and Jeff Wooster, Dow Chemical Co.'s North American senior value chain manager.
Some of the initial posts include "the bright side of the recession" from Wills, "let's make it EASY for people to recycle" from Wooster, and the interestingly named "return to Gilligan's Island" from Jones.
The Toronto Star is the latest newspaper to assign a reporter to the task of trying to live a week without plastic. Once again, the reporter discovers that it's really difficult to buy food at a modern supermarket without any plastic packaging.
Once again, the reporter also fails to note that the assignment is basically pretend, because there's no real effort to live without any plastics. The focus here is pretty much on packaging. And why do food companies use plastic instead of other materials? There's no effort to find out -- just a general plastics-are-bad attitude.
Star feature writer Francine Kopun starts the story by saying that living without plastic is a fantasy of hers:
I dream of whacking every plastic toy that has been brought into our house since my son was born four years ago. My fantasy includes a brown packing box, the Goodwill and a shopping expedition to The Toy Space Inc., an eco-friendly, family-owned store that sells wooden toys.
My son will buy educational hand puppets and grow up to be an acclaimed actor. Or a best-selling author, telling Vanity Fair that he got his start making up stories for Peter and Patty puppet.
Second thoughts sour my fantasy as I mentally scan the contents of our house. The meat we buy is wrapped in plastic. So are the mushrooms, milk, cereal, bread and sparkling water. My toothbrush is plastic. I think the bumper on our Dodge Caravan is plastic.
I decide to try anyway. With everything going green these days, I should be able to make it up as I go along.
As it turns out, even organic produce is wrapped in plastic and a good, plastic-free water bottle is hard to find.
Yes, that bumper is probably plastic. Take a closer look at the car, and your house, your computer, your plumbing, your office.
You can pretend if you like, but unless you move to a log cabin without electricity (insulated cords -- remember?), you're probably going to have quite a bit of plastic in your life.
But I doubt that will stop us from seeing more newspapers and TV stations tackling this story ideaagain this year.
Great. Just what we all need -- another sin to possibly commit. This one, however, has nothing to do with your neighbor's wife. It has to do with "greenwashing," or "the act of misleading consumers regarding the environmental practices of a company or the environmental benefits of a product or service."
TerraChoice Environmental Marketing, which published an original document listing "The Six Sins of Greenwashing" back in 2007, has just updated its research and added a seventh sin -- "the sin of worshipping of false labels." Its new report contains some startling information about the use and misuse of environmental marketing claims, including a 98 percent sinning rate. Here's a snippet from the executive summary:
In November 2008 and January 2009, TerraChoice researchers were sent into category-leading 'big box' retailers in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia with instructions to record every product making an environmental claim. For each product, the researchers recorded product details, claim(s) details, any supporting information, and any explanatory detail or offers of additional information or support. In the United States and Canada, a total of 2,219 products making 4,996 green claims were recorded.
These claims were tested against best practices, notably against guidelines provided by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, Competition Bureau of Canada, Australian Competition & Consumer Commission, and the ISO 14021 standard for environmental labeling.
Of the 2,219 North American products surveyed, over 98% committed at least one of the previously identified Six Sins of Greenwashing and a new Seventh Sin emerged.
Philadelphia-based Terrachoice explained this new sin thusly: "Some marketers are exploiting consumers' demand for third-party certification by creating fake labels or false suggestions of third-party endorsement. This development is serious enough to warrant its own category -- hence the seventh Sin."
TerraChoice offers downloadable PDF versions of both the 2007 and the updated reports on its Web site. And if this topic interests you, then you also may wish to check out this video clip of TerraChoice VP Scot Case when he discussed the first six sins last November at the Sustain '08 conference in Chicago. Another Sustain speaker, C. Steven Baker, Chicago-based head of the Federal Trade Commission's Midwest Region, in his presentation added some thoughts of his own on the topic of responsible environmental marketing.
Good luck keeping your nose clean! (and thanks to Robert Grace, editor and associate publisher of Plastics News, for contributing this post).
Nancy Eve Cohen reports for NPR's Morning Edition that "after years of double-digit increases, bottled water sales have stopped rising. Industry analysts say the economy is driving the change, but they also say environmentalists may be having an effect."
Except maybe not. The report notes that Americans spent more than $11 billion on bottled water last year, and it quotes Kim Jeffrey of Nestle Waters North America saying that environmental concerns are not having much of an impact on sales.
"The problems we're seeing right now are very much attributable to the economic downturn, not to the fact that people are leaving bottled water in droves -- because it's just not happening," Jeffery said.
Likewise, the Canwest report reminds us that although Canadian bottled water sales topped $730 million in 2007, "yet, suddenly a bottle of water is about as au courant as Michael Jackson's Thriller -- still the world's best-selling album, but you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who will admit to ever owning it."
Reminds me of the Yogi Berra quote: "Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded." As soon as they started selling bottled water by the case at Wal-Mart, no one wants to admit drinking it.
I've never been a bottled water fan -- I'm too cheap. Does that mean that now I'm cool? Somehow, I doubt it.
San Jose, Calif., is the new ground zero for the battle over plastic bags, thanks to a big push by the group Save the Bay called ""The Bay vs. the Bag.
Lewis went straight for the jugular in the blog post, comparing the American Chemistry Council's efforts on behalf of plastic bags to the tobacco industry's support for cigarette smoking.
When the tobacco industry tried suing cities to stop restaurant smoking bans, it fueled public anger and resolve, not a resurgence of puffing. So it is striking to see the American Chemistry Council (ACC) using the same heavy handed tactics against cities trying to reduce or eliminate plastic bags, a dominant feature of urban trash and ocean pollution.
From Phoenix to Philadelphia, and Seattle to Washington, D.C., the ACC has unleashed lawyers, lobbyists and PR flacks against local efforts to kick the plastic bag habit. But this attempt to protect industry profits could backfire, because it's based on myths that are flimsier than the bags themselves.
Likewise, the Mercury News frames the battle as a David vs. Goliath battle:
Fearing they are losing ground in the battle to eliminate litter-producing plastic bags, members of a leading Bay Area environmental group launched a counterattack Tuesday against a chief foe: the multibillion-dollar chemical industry.
If you had any doubt which side is wearing white hats, the story concludes with this quote from Save the Bay's Lewis: "There's a battle on -- it's the bay versus the bag. And we want to make sure the bay wins."
Lewis certainly won the PR war on Tuesday. I'm sure ACC will battle back with a timely letter to the editor. Will that be enough?
Dart Container Corp. is enlisting its workers in Lancaster, Pa., to help fight a proposed polystyrene foodservice packaging ban 70 miles away in Philadelpia.
Dart is taking the threat seriously, according to the story:
If the "Food Service Waste Reduction" ordinance passes, creating the first such ban in Pennsylvania, the company estimates it could lose 15 percent of its sales, leading to layoffs.
Worse, with Philadelphia setting a precedent, other municipalities across the state might follow suit, intensifying the damage at Dart, company officials said.
"Everybody is scared to death," said [Susan] Leftwich, of Lancaster, a quality control inspector and 13-year employee.
She called the proposal "the No. 1 topic" of conversation among the company's 1,700 workers here [in Lancaster].
Supporters of the PS tax also plan to attend the hearing. They're asking for people to bring "piles of plastic bag litter, signs, and most importantly, other supporters."
It will be interesting to see which side brings a bigger crowd, and whether the crowd will have an impact on the committee's decision.
The plastic bag beat continues to be one of the hottest in environmental journalism. Here's a sampling of bag-related headlines today:
The California Film Extruders and Converters Association and the American Chemistry Council are each backing producer-responsibility legislation in Sacramento. If one of these bills passes, it would shift the bag debate in California -- and the trend would likely spread elsewhere. Check out staff reporter Mike Verespej's coverage of the issue, posted on our Web site today.
Whole Foods Market estimates that it has kept 150 million plastic bags from going to landfillls in the past year, since it stopped giving them out at cash registers a year ago. “At first we wondered if shoppers would just switch to paper but to our great surprise, people have been truly excited about using reusable bags,” co-President and Chief Operating Officer A.C. Gallo said in a news release.
The city of Edmonds, Wash., may beat Seattle and become the first city in Washington state to ban plastic bags. The effort is being led by Councilman Strom Peterson, according to this report on The Daily Herald's Web site.
With communities facing tight budgets and politicians reluctant to raise property or income taxes, watch for more bag tax proposals to pop up around the country in the next few months.
Crime scene investigators are changing their procedures for getting fingerprints, which they say is the result of more widespread use of recycled plastics.
According to this story from NewScientist magazine's Web site, fingerprint experts at the United Kingdom's Office Scientific Development Branch are working on a new manual for lifting prints from plastic surfaces.
"We noticed there were changes in the plastic products on the market around two to three years ago," Vaughn Sears, a project manager in the branch's Fingerprint and Footwear program, told the magazine. He said products made with recycled content may look the same, but CSI officers have to learn to adapt to the different physical and chemical properties of the materials in order to get good fingerprints.
"These new products are made from an unspecified mix of polymers, which makes them much more difficult to work with," Sears said.
I wonder if the problem is really recycled plastic, or if it could be some changes in the additive formulations. Maybe "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation" will have to bring Gil Grissom and Sara Sidle out of retirement to solve this mystery.
As expected, the Seattle City Council agreed to let voters decide on the fate of a proposed plastic bag tax. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer notes, in a story that's drawing a lot of comments, that the issue could turn into quite a battle.
Reporter Chris Grygiel sets up the conflict as a war between the greens -- environmentalists -- and some opponents with "serious green" -- the plastics industry.
Those supporting the bag fee are counting on Seattle's green-friendly electorate. If recent history is any guide, opponents will be counting on vastly superior monetary resources.
The Coalition to Stop The Seattle Bag Tax -- a group funded largely by the American Chemistry Council -- had raised nearly $250,000 by the end of February, according to Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission.
Most of that money -- $239,000 -- had already been spent. The group paid to gather signatures to put the bag fee question before voters.
The anti-bag-tax group has $8,720 left in the bank, but could presumably raise a lot more.
Overall, this is a pretty fair story. It allows leaders on both sides of the debate to make their case. Keith Christman, of the American Chemistry Council, notes that despite environmentalist claims that they speak for the majority, the city's own polling shows that three out of five Seattle residents are against a fee on disposable bags.
"We think Seattle residents will look at this and say we don't need a punitive tax to do the right thing for the environment," Christman told the P-I.
It's interesting to see how the media describes the plastics industry. Keep this in mind: despite how it is often portrayed, D.C. insiders don't really consider the plastics industry a major player in political lobbying.
The plastic bag tax/ban debate has reached Washington, D.C., and it looks like it might get nasty. Marc Fisher of The Washington Postdevotes his entire Potomac Confidential column to the subject today, and the plastics industry doesn't come across very well.
The headline is "You Can Wrap That Red Herring in a Plastic (or Paper) Bag," and he starts by comparing the American Chemistry Council's current effort to stop a proposed bag tax in D.C. to a 1987 effort that turned back a deposit on soft drink containers, which elicited help from the NAACP and Operation Push.
A group called the Progressive Bag Affiliates, funded by the American Chemistry Council and leading bag makers, has hired Darrell Carrington, a lobbyist from Annapolis who is African American. Carrington tells me that he's making the rounds of council members' offices, arguing that any fee on bags "is going to disproportionately hit low-income people, who are predominantly minorities. That's what it is. Truth is truth."
Council member Yvette Alexander (D-Ward 7) has heard from more than 100 constituents who expressed their opposition, as the automated calls urged. "I'm really angry that people are portraying this as something that hurts poor people when what they're really doing is defending their own industry," she says. "It bothers me that they're making this an economic issue when the real issue is the pollution in the Anacostia River."
Retorts Carrington: "That's so dismissive and disrespectful of the poor. It's easy to sit in an ivory tower and say that."
When I seek a comment from Progressive Bag Affiliates, Shari Jackson, a leader of its campaign, says she'd be happy to talk. But the next thing I know, I get a call from their media wrangler, Jennifer Killinger, who says, "Unfortunately, we won't be able to participate in an interview."
But I get to Mark Daniels, vice president of Hilex-Poly, the nation's largest plastic bag maker, who says the appeal to minorities "is an effective argument for us because these 'taxes' really affect the minority individuals who are walking to the store."
Daniels says the industry knows there is a pollution problem. "Believe me, I'm not comfortable when I see a plastic bag in a tree, but how did it get there? When was the last time your city council went after people for littering?" He says the answer lies in more recycling, not fees or bans.
Fisher will be taking part in a live Web chat today (April 2). Check out the Post's site to participate -- it's likely that he'll be getting questions on the bag tax column.
Some attractive products made from recycled PET bottles
I'm not always impressed by products made using plastic trash. A lot of them end up looking like stuff I made in arts & crafts in the Cub Scouts -- and believe me, my arts & crafts were nothing to write home about.
I might be the only kid in history who brought home art projects from school that didn't end up on the refrigerator door. I'm sure I gave my parents a good laugh.
These lamps made from recycled PET bottles really are cool.
The bottles are cleaned, sandblasted and then fabricated into decorative shapes. They are then screwed into the inner shade, which is made from recycled cardboard. Check them out.
The lamps are a candidate for top new concept product of 2009 from the Ideal Home Show. Check them out here, as well as other interesting new products from across the pond.
Here's a reminder from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer's Web site: Today the Seattle City Council may decide whether to let voters consider a 20 cent-per-bag tax on plastic and paper grocery bags.
Seattle had passed a bag fee last year, but a petition kept the ordinance from taking effect. Now the City Council will decide whether to let a public referendum decide the issue once and for all.
For amusement, check the comments on the PI's Strange Bedfellow blog about the issue. But be prepared for lots of name calling -- apparently Seattle is riddled with "eco-zealots" "cakesniffing ecoyuppies" and "Marxists," if you believe the commenters...
This week's The New Yorker magazine has a feature story about David de Rothschild and the Plastiki. The magazine's Web site has video to accompany the story.
You remember the Plastiki -- the boat made out of old PET bottles that de Rothschild, heir to a famous banking family and author of the Global Warming Survival Handbook, is sailing on an 8,000-mile journey from San Francisco to Australia in an effort to raise awareness of marine debris problems.
In this video, de Rothschild and members of the crew talk about building the boat.
Carl Bialik, The Wall Street Journal's "Numbers Guy," today looks at a question that we've kicked around on the Plastics Blog before -- exactly how big is the Pacific Garbage Patch?
Just how big is this oceanic zone? Some say it is about the size of Quebec, or 600,000 square miles -- also described as twice the size of Texas. Others say this expanse of junk swept together by currents is the size of the U.S. -- 3.8 million square miles. Or, it could be twice that size.
The Great Pacific Garbage Patch, as it has been called, has become a symbol of what some say is a looming crisis over trash. But this floating mass of plastic in the Pacific Ocean is hard to measure, and few agree on how big it is or how much plastic it holds. That makes it difficult to determine what to do about it.
That hasn't stopped activists and the media from using only the biggest estimates of the patch's size to warn of an environmental catastrophe.
Bailik notes that some newspaper articles have exaggerated the size and density of the patch. Some stories have described it as an island, for example, which implies it is something you could walk on.
It's actually more like a soup with floating bits of plastic.
The story also notes that data comparing the volume of plastic to plankton has been misused and misquoted.
Bialik has a blog post on the topic, seeking feedback from readers.
He raises some interesting points in the story. Certainly many print and broadcast news stories do a good job reporting environmental issues related to plastic. There are lots of good environmental beat reporters out there who make sure to include all the proper context, quote experts, and thoroughly cover all the bases.
But many stories are condensed and simplified to the point that they use exaggeration and partial facts in a way that can mislead readers.
I've talked to people who really do think the Garbage Patch is a floating island that could somehow be towed to shore and recycled, landfilled or incinerated. The truth is more complex.
Still, the marine debris issue is serious, and public pressure -- even when it is informed by less than accurate news reports -- is continuing to drive debates in many communities on plastic bag taxes and polystyrene food service bans.
Tennessee is a frequent battleground in the debate over bottle deposits. Stop me if you've heard this before, but this could be the year the state finally passes a deposit law.
That's the opinion of Marge Davis, vice president of Scenic Tennessee, who wrote this opinion piece on the topic posted on the chattanoogan.com Web site.
Scenic Tennessee is a partner in a project called Pride of Place, which supports adoption of a deposit program. Davis notes that some business groups that had opposed deposit laws in the past are more open to the concept these days.
Mike Verespej, Plastics News' Washington-based staff reporter who covers recycling, notes that there are nine active bottle bills this year, not counting the one in Connecticut that already passed.
Remember the marine researcher who said the threat that plastics posed to sea life was being exaggerated? Today comes word from another researcher who disagrees.
“We wanted to see if plastics ingestion in leatherbacks was hype or reality,” James told Science Daily. “It was a monumental effort that looked back at necropsies over the last century from all over the world. ... After reviewing the results of 371 necropsies since 1968, we discovered over one third of the turtles had ingested plastic.”
The story explains that once leatherbacks ingest plastic -- which they apparently mistake for jellyfish -- "thousands of spines lining the throat and esophagus make it nearly impossible to regurgitate. The plastic can lead to partial or even complete obstruction of the gastrointestinal tract, resulting in decreased digestive efficiency, energetic and reproductive costs and, for some, starvation."
“Plastics ingestion doesn’t always cause death, but there are clearly health risks to the turtles,” James said.
A tax on plastic might seem onerous if the alternatives weren't so readily available. Paper is an easy option. But clearly, the best choice is BYOB (bring your own bag).
Prius drivers determined to save the planet no longer have the market cornered on reusable bags. Biodegradable and reusable are all the rage. Even newspapers, including this one, are making the shift to biodegradable bags.
Sure, Texans could do this on their own, and many already have. But Anchía's bill would speed the transition, quickly raising consciousness about this plastic poison – the bags that will outlive us all.
Perhaps paying 7 cents will compel consumers to use common sense at the check-out by taking a pass on the plastic.
Any readers in Texas -- are grocery stores there collecting plastic bags for recycling? And are you surprised that the legislature is considering a tax on plastic bags -- and that the Dallas paper supports the idea?
Bag taxes frequently proposed, but few actually adopted
Plastic bag taxes and bans continue to pop up just about everywhere in America these days. Some seem driven by groups like the Surfriders Foundation and others concerned about marine debris. Others have an element of "here's something that the public hates that we can tax" from cash-strapped cities like New York.
But most of the proposed taxes and bans have not been successful. (Colorado shot one down today, for example). The New York Timeshas a feature story on the topic today, noting that "momentum for imposing fees or bans has expanded from a few, often affluent, liberal cities on the West Coast ... tto dozens of legislative proposals in states like Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Texas and Virginia.
"Yet as support increased in places, the national economy began to decline. No state has imposed a fee or a ban."
Why have bag taxes and bans failed? The story credits bag makers, who have stepped up marketing efforts and brought lawsuits against cities that have tried to impose bans and fees. (Check out the photo on the coalition's Web site -- it makes President Obama look like he's a plastic bag supporter!)
The story also notes that, "Despite its popular appeal, the issue has not been a priority for national environmental groups. They are more likely to focus on broad federal issues like carbon emissions, renewable energy and use of public lands."
Many artists use plastics to create interesting and beautiful pieces. In the course of my regular work, see stories about plastics in art pretty frequently. Two recent stories are worth sharing with blog readers.
First, check out this story, and the brilliant, colorful photos, from the Columbus Dispatch. The story is a Q&A interview with Bruce Siple, a Clintonville, Ohio, folk artist whose home features elaborate displays comprised of tens of thousands of pieces of plastic, arranged in symmetrical, multilevel formations.
Before Siple was married, he lived in an apartment that his friends called "the Plastic Palace." Here's a snippet from the story:
Q: Why plastic? Is this some kind of tribute to the famous line in The Graduate?
A: No, I was really attracted to plastic because it was a fascinating subject -- so accessible, so cheap. It passes through our lives like a river, and people don't pay any attention to it.
Even when it's used in packaging, there's a lot of really articulated plastic, stuff that's highly conceived and executed and does a very specific job. Maybe it's a cap on a milk carton, and we tend to just throw it in the trash without even thinking about it.
But once it gets a stage, it becomes something completely different, especially when it's put together and put in a different context.
As I've gone through life, I've sort of amplified on that. I just began to see the beauty in it. The more I got, the better it looked to me. And here I am, with tens of thousands of pieces. I can't give you a motivation beyond that.
The other story worth reading -- again, with some interesting photos -- is about an exhibit featuring the work of four Los Angeles artists who created fashionable outfits made from recycled plastic shopping bags.
"We chose to focus on the crinkly plastic shopping bag that you get at Home Depot and grocery stores. It is such a great medium to work with, very versatile, great texture," said Eveline Morel, owner of EM & Co., the boutique that featured the exhibit, in a news release. "The dresses are very wearable, they're layered onto a silk slip, have lots of holes, keep you from overheating... to clean them, you can just hose them down, no ironing required."
I definitely wouldn't iron those dresses. But from the photo, I can't really tell that they're made of plastic bags.
I've seen plastic bags used to make hula skirts, but nothing this nice. Check it out.
The Society of Plastics Engineers has named the finalists for the Clean Technology Business Forum competition, which will be named at the Global Plastics Environmental Conference later this month in Orlando, Fla.
The companies will make presentations on their technologies on Feb. 26.
"This diverse group of enterprising companies will disclose innovative technologies ranging from alternative energy sources to bioplastics to new approaches in the fields of photodegradable plastics and solid waste recycling," said Eric Koester, the Clean Technology Business Forum Coordinator, in a news release. "SPE's forum will provide a unique opportunity for the industry to discover cutting-edge clean and green technologies while still in their formative phases. The finalist companies will offer an exciting look at the future of the plastics."
The finalists are:
Cool Energy Inc., a solar energy equipment company located in Boulder, CO, is focused on the development and implementation of systems that can cost-effectively harness the sun's energy to provide heat and electricity for homes and business.
Exotech Bio Solutions Ltd. manufactures biocompatible and biodegradable superabsorbent polymers (SAP) for use in the personal hygiene, pharmaceutical, food, environmental and agricultural markets. ExoSAP is biodegradable and less expensive to produce than competing materials.
FRX Polymers Inc. is a pilot-stage specialty polymer company that is developing a patent-protected family of environmentally friendly, inherently flame retardant, transparent, high-flow engineering thermoplastics.
Polyflow LLC, is commercializing patent-pending alternative energy technology that makes it possible to convert mixed-waste polymers into monomers, the feedstock used by petrochemical companies to make polymers. The major product of the Polyflow process is styrene, a feedstock for polystyrene and other polymers. The process is a low-cost alternative to existing methods for producing styrene.
PolyNew Inc. blends PLA with other plastics for use in solid and foamed tray prototypes for microwaveable food and other packaging applications.
SunBrite Packaging Co. Inc, has developed packaging that has the same appearance and applications as polystyrene foam for food and beverage packaging and is engineered to photodegrade in the environment, both on land and in water. After use, the power of light is harnessed to degrade this packaging material in a matter of weeks to months, depending on the photoaccelerant concentration present.
Out-of-work folks line up for shrink-wrap franchises
Here's an interesting idea for a plastics-related small business. A Reno, Nev., company is offering franchises for investors who want to go into business as freelance shrink-wrappers.
That's right -- shrink wrappers. It's not just for packaging anymore. A lot of folks use shrink wrap to store boats over the winter, and the company, Fast Wrap USA, notes that uses for the protective film are "growing beyond marinas to disaster zones, construction sites and basic backyard uses," according to this story.
The recession is creating demand for wrapping some products, also helping to generate interest from people looking for jobs or supplemental income.
Mike Enos, co-founder of the company, says he has franchises in eight locations, with three more in the works. He hopes to have 30 locations by the end of 2009, and 500 nationally within five years.
Right now a franchise goes for $50,000 to $60,000, and includes training "and all supplies needed to get started -- heat guns, ladders and rolls of shrink wrap."
What plastics companies are doing the most innovative things related to the environment, sustainability and plastics recycling? One place to find out is at the annual Global Plastics Environmental Conference (GPEC), scheduled for Feb. 25-27 in Orlando, Fla.
In advance of the event, the Plastics Environmental Division of the Society of Plastics Engineers has named the winners of its GPEC 2009 Environmental Stewardship Awards. The awards recognize organizations that have demonstrated environmental leadership and excellence. Here's a list of the winners:
Cereplast Inc. of Hawthorne, Calif., for "Emerging Technologies In Materials." Cereplast developed Cereplast Hybrid Resins, a proprietary polypropylene blend with about 50% renewable additives and properties similar to traditional PP.
Mohawk Greenworks of Eton, Ga., for "Carpet/Floor/Wall Coverings Recycling." The company contributed to the 'total recycling' of post-consumer carpets, establishing small-scale (portable) recycling centers.
Western Digital of Lake Forest, Calif., for "Design for Sustainability." Collaborating with the Packaging Plus company, Western Digital developed a lightweight, efficient packaging and shipping system using recycled plastics for safe transportation of fragile computer hard-drives across the globe, reducing weight, cost, damage, and energy consumption.
KW Plastics of Troy, Ala., for "Plastics Recycling Technologies and Applications." The company pioneered efforts to set up a national paint can recycling program and developed proprietary cans made from recycled plastics.
Eagle Performance Products of Calhoun, Ga., for "Enabling Technologies in Processes and Procedures." The company insitituted a voluntary emissions control program at its plant to reduce waste and emissions from plastics additives, and it promoted such stewardship throughout its supply and customer chain.
List AG, of Arisdorf, Switzerland, for New Technologies in Processes." List developed a continuous, free radical, non-solvent polymerization process for methyl methacrylate monomer, using a unique kneader extruder system with low power consumption.
Cascade Engineering Inc. of Grand Rapids, Mich., for "New Environmental Technologies in Conventional Plastic Materials." The company manufactures wind turbines for domestic and community applications, using a recyclable engineering thermoplastic.
Braskem SA of Sao Paulo, Brazil, for "Plastic Materials from Renewable Sources." Braskem developed an innovative process for using ethanol to produce polyethylene, and the company implemented the process in a large-scale production plant.
DuPont Co. of Wilmington, Del., for "Plastic Materials from Renewable Sources." DuPont invented and produces bio-based Cerenol polyols from renewably sourced 1,3 propane diol (Bio-PDO) for use in various applications, including use as intermediates in the manufacture of several polymers.
Pace Industries of Reedsburg, Wis., for the "Chairman's Award." The company supplies recyclable/compostable sheet and film products, recycles its own and customers' plastics, has taken measures to reduce waste and energy consumption, makes use of alternative energy sources, and facilitates similar practices among its suppliers and customers in the graphic arts industry.
Peninsula Packaging Co. of Exeter, Calif., is the receipient of the "Daniel Eberhardt Environmental Award." Peninsula Packaging has established an Environmental Sustainability program that involves recycling of large amounts of post-consumer plastic bottles, converting them to sheet and containers for the packaging and food industry, and deriving a substantial part of its electricity needs from its own photovoltaic solar farms. The company also supports academic research at universities to develop tools for the post-consumer plastics industry. This award is given in recognition of Peninsula Packaging's total commitment to environmental sustainability.
It's going to be interesting to see just how many North American plastics executives venture to New Delhi next week to participate in the subcontinent's huge, triennial plastics fest known as Plastindia. Two factors may serve to keep some people close to home -- the global economic crisis and the recent, high-profile terrorist attacks in Mumbai. But, those challenges notwithstanding, India remains one of the world's largest, most promising plastics markets.
One thing is for sure: Those who do go to the six-day exhibition will have no shortage of activities from which to choose, starting with a pre-show rotomolding conference. The Association of Rotational Molders International recently rebranded its division in the region as the Society of Asian Rotomoulders (StAR), and the group will meet Feb. 1-3 at the Hotel Park Plaza Noida. The India-China Plastics Summit also takes place on Tuesday, Feb. 3.
On Feb. 5, the Society of the Plastics Industry Inc. is co-organizing the India-U.S. Plastics Trade Summit. The show organizers Plastindia Foundation also are putting on an internatiional business and technology conference on Feb. 6-7, and then the environment takes center stage on Feb. 7 with the Asian Plastic Recycling & Waste Management Conference.
The Plastindia Foundation has even turned to YouTube to promote the event, with a fast-paced, 50-second video clip. So, if you are headed to New Delhi, rest up because you'll have a hectic schedule. If you can't make it this time, stay tuned in to our (newly redesigned) PlasticsNews.com, as we will have two reporters there to gather and deliver the week’s most important news to you.
On Dec. 6-7, 50 Maine Plastics workers (including owner David Kaplan) joined volunteers including local scout, church and and community groups to help pack 312,500 meals for distribution to starving children throughout the world. The packaged meals consist of rice, soy protein, dehydrated vegetables and 20 vitamins and minerals mixed with vegetarian chicken flavoring.
FMSC distributes these meals to orphanages, clinics, relief centers and schools to more than 50 countries in the developing world.
Mike Dikelsky, an employee of Maine Plastics, said the event was "a tremendous success. In six packing sessions, 1513 volunteers packed 312,552 meals. This is enough food to feed 856 malnourished children one meal per day for an entire year.”
Kaplan said that he hopes that Maine Plastics can make this an annual tradition.
Congratulations to Maine Plastics, its workers and the local community for their efforts to make a difference in the world.
Martin Schrager, a plastics recycling industry consultant in Boca Raton, Fla., was a college roommate of alleged investment fraud perpetrator Bernard Madoff, according to this story in The New York Times.
He was my roommate. There was nothing nefarious about the guy. When I heard years later that he was who he was, I was astonished. He never seemed like the kind of guy who could move millions on Wall Street.
I did hear about him some years later in Florida. My accountant was his accountant. I invested a small amount with him. But those were the years we had a president named James Earl Carter. Interest rates were like 18 percent. So I figured that if you put your money in the bank they gave you 18 percent and a toaster. So I took my money and got 18 percent and a toaster, too. Then he went on to infamy.
Sounds like Schrager is one of the few former Madoff investors who came out ahead.
The Chicago Tribunehad a feature story on Saturday about a reporter's effort to (sort of) live for a week without plastic. This story topic is becoming popular everywhere, it seems. As usual, the reporter doesn't really make much of an effort to live entirely without plastic. That would require giving up electricity and plumbing, healthcare and automobiles. No, the focus is on giving up packaging and disposable diapers -- and even then, reporter Trine Tsouderos discovers that living without plastics in 2008 isn't easy (or perhaps even desireable).
The story is labeled "A consumer watch special report," which seems a bit of a stretch. I guess it's "special" because Tsouderos subjected her husband and children to the pseudo no-plastic lifestyle for a whole week.
The story itself is OK, but my favorite part are the reader comments. Most are submitted anonymously, but I think I recognize a few of the authors based on their comments and writing style.
Someone with the pen name "2nd Amendment" from Sycamore, Ill., writes: "To be honest, I simply do not understand the fear of plastic? What in the world is wrong with it? Ooo... It doesn't degrade in a landfill. So what? Most things don't. What, in a few years are you expecting the landfills to become a nice pile of fluff to turn into a vegetable garden? Folks would do well to learn some real science and forget about the latest pop-culture, carbon footprint, pseudo-science that is seems to pass as fact these days."
"Reality" from Winfield, Ill., adds: "another stupid article. To go without plastic you'd have to live in a cave or tree. There is lots of plastic in every building. You couldn't drive a car, ride a bus/plane, or ride a bike. You'd have no food since it's used in the equipment to grow and harvest food and transport, refrigerate, etc. Get real!"
Someone who calls themselves "American" wrote: "I see a lot of articles like this lately, trying to live plastic free, trying to buy nothing for a year, trying to eat locally for a year, and they all end up sounding like a variation on obsessive-compulsive disorder."
There are also interesting debates among the readers about the pros and cons of plastics packaging, what living plastic-free really means, and whether the debate should actually be about America's overconsumption habit. As a result, the reader comments add depth to the story, and I encourage you to check them out.
Computer company Dell Inc. wants to be "the greenest technology company on the planet," and today announced a green-packaging strategy that it said would help save $8 million and approximately 20 million pounds of packaging material over the next four years.
One of the interesting angles: Dell will replace foam with air-filled cushions, molded pulp cushions, and thermoformed cushions made from 100 percent recycled high density polyethylene. In the next year, Dell estimates that it will use an estimated 33 million recycled milk jugs to make packaging for its desktops and laptops.
"We're challenging every technology company to join us in implementing a global green packaging strategy," said Tod Arbogast, director of Sustainable Business at Dell. “In doing so, we will drive extraordinary environmental and cost savings for our businesses and customers while setting a new efficiency model for other industries to follow.”
If you're working for a U.S. plastics company and you're looking for a retail outlet for one of your made-in-America products, check out American Aisle, a new retailer in Round Lake Beach, Ill. The Lake County Journals Web site has a feature about the store today.
The store sells only products that are 100 percent U.S.-made. "We actually sent some products back because we found they were only partially made here," store owner Nitai Pandya told the reporter. It currently has more than 1,000 products from about 25 manufacturers, but they'd like to have four times as many products.
Plastic products include housewares and hygiene items (toothbrushes, etc.), some of them made with recycled plastic.
The owners, Pandya and Bogumila Kenig-Bujnarowski, are both immigrants -- Pandya came from India five years ago, Kenig-Bujnarowski from Poland 15 years ago.
Isn't it interesting how immigrants can be the greatest boosters for America?
When Clorox Co. announced last month that it would set up a system to accept used Brita water filters for recycling, it was the culmination of an effort by a blogger who started putting pressure on the company in June 2007.
This story in Canada's National Post tells the story of Beth Terry, author of the Fake Plastic Fish blog, who used the Web site to start a petition to urge the company to set up a program to recycle the filters.
When Terry -- who lives in Oakland, Calif., and keeps track of all the plastic she purchases and discards as part of her green blog -- realized she couldn't recycle her filter, she decided to email Brita and ask why. In return, she got a standard form letter explaining there was a lack of recycling infrastructure available in the U.S.
"I sent another email after that," says Terry, "asking why Brita was able to build its own facility in Europe but not here, and then I didn't really get anything from them, so I just kind of blogged about it and ranted, then eventually let it go."
Some time later, however, when she was checking her Google analytics to see what search terms had directed people to her site, Terry noticed the words "Brita" and "recycling" came up a lot. This prompted her to ask around and see if there was interest in starting a campaign, and so began the process of letters, petitions, websites and meetings with various environmental organizations.
The story notes that Clorox's campaign "began with a single, frustrated woman not knowing how to get rid of her water filter and ended with massive structural change at a multinational corporation in just months."
Pretty amazing. No wonder more companies and trade groups are starting to pay attention to the role that bloggers play in informing the public.
Remember the contest that Telluride, Mountain Village and Aspen, Colo., had this summer, where they encouraged residents to use reusable grocery bags instead of disposables? Now the contest to being expanded to as many as 24 other ski towns in Colorado, and it will cover all of 2009.
That's the story from the Summit Daily News in Frisco, Colo., which reports that the voluntary challenge among the Colorado Association of Ski Towns could prevent the use of nearly 7 million single-use plastic bags.
Participating towns are asking local groceries and other retailers to keep track of how many reusable bags are used, and to make a 5 cent donation for each bag to an environmental education fund.
This is such a better idea than a bag ban or a tax. Consumers can participate in the contest, and perhaps even get a small rebate from the store for using using reusable bags -- but the stores can still hand out disposable bags, which are handy for people who reuse them or who forget to bring their reusable bags.
Plastics Design & Manufacturing Inc., a profile extruder and thermoformer, was recently presented with an Award for Environmental Stewardship from its home town, the city of Centennial, Colo.
The 32-year-old company in 2001 "made a commitment to begin reducing our carbon footprint and outlined an Environmental Policy Statement, listing what we could do to become a greener company," it said in a news release. Here's a list of some of the things it came up with:
PDM offered our employees staggered work shifts and a 4 day work week.
Home offices have been set up for several employees who were not crucial to daily manufacturing.
Encouraged and supported carpooling among employees.
The landscaping has been modified minimizing the grassy areas around the facility to reduce the need for watering.
On the manufacturing floor the company installed high volume fans to circulate fresh air though out the building.
To reduce the need for artificial lighting, the company installed over 40 rooftop skylights allowing sunlight to shine throughout the building thereby reducing energy usage.
In 2008, PDM will install an energy management system that reduces amount of non-productive current thereby reducing lost and wasted power by 20 percent.
PDM recycles more than 90 percent of the plastic scrap leftover from manufacturing. The recycled material is either reused by PDM or sold to other companies for reuse.
Future plans include, installing a solar system by the end of 2008, which the company expects to generate up to 15 percent of its useable energy.
PDM makes Peak Fence Systems, a plastic fence made from 100 percent post-industrial waste. Congratulations to PDM for winning this local recognition.
The New York Times' Green Inc. business blog is reporting today that in 2009, the Times will begin using PolyGreen biodegradable bags to protect its newspapers shipped around the country. The bags, from GP Plastics Corp., are supposed to degrade in an open environment within a few months, "and within two to three years when in a landfill," according to a Times spokeswoman.
She said the Times is the "first national newspaper to commit to using this environmentally friendly bag. While this new bag is more expensive, we believe it is an important change to make."
Here's an interesting application for plastics that I haven't seen before. The city of Naples, Fla., is using floating islands made of recycled plastic to help clean three local lakes and Naples Bay. According to this story from WZVN-TV in Fort Myers, the islands "look like big, brown floaty devices" when they're launched. Workers then plant native vegetation on top, which naturally filter out oils, metals and other pollution.
I found a few links to companies that market these "floating islands," including this one in Montana and this company in Maryland. Check their sites for photos of the islands and more information.
It's nice to see a marine application for plastics that helps the environment, in contrast to the big marine debris problem.
Bag bans and taxes continue to pop up across the country, but defenders of plastic bags can point to a victory in Red Bank, N.J., where the borough council decided to drop a proposed ban on Monday. The Asbury Park Press reported on the move today, noting that the decision came after a "spirited debate."
The story notes that the proposal has been in discussion for almost 10 months. It would have banned plastic bags starting July 1.
Once again, an industry promise to step up bag recycling efforts was an important part of the arsenal. Donna Dempsey of the American Chemistry Council's Progressive Bag Affiliates spoke at the meeting, arguing that "A better approach is to sit down with people who know plastic bags, recycling, stores and solid waste."
Meanwhile, as I noted, plastic bag legislation is continuing to spread. In Toronto, where city officials are discussing a new packaging proposal, a group of elementary school kids are going to speak to the city council's works committee today to push for a bag ban, according to this story from the Globe and Mail.
"When we're adults, we want a clean world, we don't want it polluted all over with plastic bags and whatnot," said David Cash, 11.
Their teacher, former human-rights lawyer Harriet Simand, says the exercise has taught the children about organizing to fight for a cause.
"They have a very clear sense of right and wrong," Ms. Simand said. "Sometimes adults need to hear it."
It seems fitting to see 11-year-olds take up the issue. Watching the plastics industry battle against bag bans already seems like watching a kid play Whac-A-Mole. Whenever they knock one down, another pops up somewhere else.
Popular Mechanics magazine's Web site has a fun feature today, "Recycling Myths: PM Debunks 5 Half Truths about Recycling." It's always interesting for me to see what magazines like Popular Mechanics are saying about plastics, so I'll share the publication's Myth No. 5: "Most of the plastic put in recycling bins ends up in the garbage."
This one is true now, but changing quickly. Sorting plastics is tricky for recycling processors. Bottles can't be separated out with a magnet; small pieces like coffee-cup lids get flattened and mixed into paper bales; bags get caught in the spinning disks of sorting equipment, forcing frequent shut-downs. Trying to decode the recycling numbers on plastic products is also a pain for consumers.
As a result, it's true that most of the plastic we use does end up in landfill sites. Less than 1 percent of polystyrene containers (e.g. yogurt pots) are recycled, and even well-established recyclables like PET (e.g. soft-drink bottles) end up in the trash more than two-thirds of the time. But the problem isn't that recycling programs are dumping recyclable plastic into the trash -- it's that they don't accept the plastics in the first place.
That problem is on the way out, though. This spring, San Francisco announced that its pioneering recycling program would begin accepting all rigid plastic, including anything from yogurt pots and clamshell containers to plastic toys and buckets. Other cities are also expanding the range of plastics they accept. New technology makes this feasible: Optical sorters use infrared light to instantly identify the chemical composition of a container, then a puff of air directs it into the right pile.
Recyclers also have to find a market for plastics once they're sorted -- and that's starting to happen, too. San Francisco recently signed a deal to sell rigid 5-gal buckets, common in construction, to a company that will turn them into artificial lumber for landscaping.
The information about sortation isn't really new. Big PET recyclers have been using sophisticated sortation equipment -- like the technology described here -- for over a decade.
I don't think it's really fair to say that this myth "is true now." Obviously most plastic thrown away in the U.S. today ends up in landfills, and the numbers PM cites are accurate. But that's not the same as saying that "most of the plastic put in recycling bins ends up in the garbage." Sure, consumers throw stuff in their recycling bins that communities don't want, and that ends up being thrown away. But is that the majority of plastics?
I suspect that most of the plastic put into recycling bins are PET and HDPE bottles, and there is definitely a market for those containers.
So the bottom line is that PM is right, it is a myth that most plastic put in recycling bins ends up in the garbage. They also happen to be wrong, because the first sentence of the article contradicts the headline.
Thanks to PN colleague Kathie Case for pointing out this story today.
The city of Toronto is preparing to release a report on ways to reduce packaging waste. The news could come as soon as tomorrow. But while the proposal has not been released yet, it is already generating attention, especially from representatives of the plastics industry that worry that their products could be banned.
The Globe and Mail newspaper wrote last week: "Many options are in play, such as an outright ban on materials used in food takeout, a tax on plastic bags, a city deposit-return program, encouragement for customers to leave packaging at the store and, there's that word again, a ban on bottled water at city facilities." (Sorry, that story is behind a pay wall).
The story quotes city councillor Glenn De Baeremaeker, identified as one of the forces behind the proposal, saying: "I think it is appropriate to consider banning things that cannot be recycled," but adding that "polystyrene would not fall into that [category]."
Still, some in industry are concerned, and today they announced the formation of a "coalition on city in-store food packaging source reduction" that has requested a meeting with Mayor David Miller to discuss the plan.
The coalition presents its case in a news release today: "Businesses with expertise in food retailing and food distribution want to ensure their voice and expert opinion is heard. Food packaging is a very complex subject and decisions related to it cannot be solely dictated by waste diversion concerns. ... Business and industry are calling on the City to use voluntary approaches and to exercise caution. Heavy emphasis on taxes, environmental fees, deposits, and licensing restrictions to force reduction could have a number of unintended negative consequences that could end up hurting residents, consumers, retailers and ultimately the City with a marginal environmental win."
Add Dell Inc. to the list of computer and office equipment makers that are touting materials-related choices in their marketing efforts. The company today announced that its new OptiPlex 960 desktop PCs have at least 10 pecent post-consumer plastic in the housing.
"That’s about the equivalent of three plastic water bottles,” Curtis Campbell, the OptiPlex’s product manager, told earth2tech.com. The line of green PCs is aimed mostly at institutional buyers, according to the Web site.
It will be interesting to see which plastic wins the hearts and minds of environmentally minded office product buyers -- recycled content like Dell is using, or biopolymers like Canon Inc.
The Oct. 18 fire destroyed the 32,000-square-foot building, equipment and about 750 tons of paper and plastics, according to President Steve Grossman. The fire was started by a spark from a contractor's torch.
Grossman said three other local recyclers stepped in to help, offering to process materials for his company.
Grossman Group leased the building from the Solid Waste Authority of Central Ohio.
You may have heard that Wal-Mart Stores Inc. plans to cut back its plastic bag waste by one-third by 2013. It should come as no surprise that some people don't think that's fast enough.
Winston isn't a radical environmentalist (not that there's anything wrong with that...) -- he's the type of expert who companies like Wal-Mart hire to give them advice on how to deal with sustainability issues. So his opinions carry a lot of weight with many in the business community.
Here, in part, is what Winston had to say:
I'm generally a fan of doing something now and getting moving. But I found myself thinking at the Wal-Mart announcement about much larger goals. Instead of targeting one-third of plastic waste by 2013, why not eliminate all plastic bags by then, or eliminate half by next year? It's been done before. IKEA put a small charge (a nickel) on bags and eliminated 90% in one year in multiple countries. ...
In the case of bags, Wal-Mart and other retailers are setting up recycling programs in stores. The efforts strike me as a bit onerous and expensive. It seems possible that going for a much larger change -- through, for example, an IKEA-like charge to signal to customers the behavior change desired, or a Whole-Foods-like rebate for bringing your own bag -- may actually save a ton of money and effort. It may be counterintuitive that a larger initiative could be cheaper, but it's worth pursuing. Of course charging customers has some downsides, but Wal-Mart could make the shift more palatable by funneling proceeds to good causes in the community.
I imagine that some plastics industry folks would disagree, since setting up in-stores bag recycling is the centerpiece in most efforts to save plastic bags from being taxed or banned.
Winston will focus on plastics more on Nov. 6, when he gives a keynote speech at the Sustain 08 conference in Chicago. The event is sponsored by Plastics News and the Society of the Plastics Industry Inc.
It will be interesting to see how Winston spins the get-rid-of-plastic-bags message in front of that crowd.
Canon Inc. and Apple Computer Inc. made headlines this week for materials-related choices in their electronics products. One of the companies chose to work with bio-based plastics, while one the other trumpeted a move away from plastics.
Canon announced that it had developed a new bio-based plastic that will be used in exterior plastic parts for office products that will be launched early next year. Canon worked with Toray Industries Inc. to develop the material, called "Ecodear." The resin is based on polylactic acid, according to a report in our sister publication Plastics & Rubber Weekly.
"Particularly in the area of flame retardance, Ecodear is the world's first bio-based plastic applicable for use in multifunction office systems to achieve 5V classification under the UL 94 flammability testing program," Canon said in a news release. "Compared with conventional petroleum-based plastics used in multifunction office systems, the new bio-based plastic developed by Canon and Toray offers an expected reduction in manufacturing-related CO2 emissions of approximately 20 percent. The development of the new bio-based plastic will enable its use not only for select parts in multifunction office systems, but also for replacing petroleum-based plastics used for exterior parts, which require a high level of flame retardance."
Apple went the plastics-avoidance route, introducing a new line of MacBook laptops with aluminum unibody enclosures. The move has been rumored all summer, so it wasn't a big surprise. But it still seemed like the announcement generated quite a bit of news coverage.
“Apple has invented a whole new way of building notebooks from a single block of aluminum. And, just as important, they are the industry’s greenest notebooks,” said Steve Jobs, Apple’s CEO.
Greenpeace, which has been pressuring Apple to change its material usage, praised the move -- not specifically because of the switch from plastics to aluminum, but for continuing to move away from PVC and brominated flame retardants.
"The new MacBook's are a major step forward," said Greenpeace's Zeina Alhajj. "The models are still not entirely free of PVC, but they mark an industry first in having a BFR-free motherboard. Apple is now setting standards for other manufacturers to follow."
Those MacBooks still carry a premium price, so don't expect the competition to follow the leader and switch to aluminum.
I think it will be interesting to see how Canon's PLA products sell next year -- and how much the material choice is featured in the company's marketing efforts.
The Society of the Plastics Industry Inc.'s blog is live and ready for prime time, so go take a look. It's located at plasticsindustry.blogspot.com, and it's called "In the Hopper."
Barry Eisenberg at SPI is the primary author/poster, but others (including SPI President and CEO Bill Carteaux) can and will post items.
It looks like they've been posting on a wide variety of topics during the warm-up period, including energy policy, sustainability, and some general-interest items. There's also a blog roll with links to other plastics-specifics blogs.
This should be an interesting site to watch. Welcome to blogland, SPI.
It is no surprise that The New York Timesrecently editorialized in favor of the plastic bag ban in Westport, Conn. After all, we noted back in September that Westport resident David Pogue, technology columnist for the Times, spoke in favor of the ban at a public meeting and told the crowd: “...if you pass it, I’ll write about it ....”
It looks like he kept his promise.
Here's an excerpt from the newspaper's recent editorial on the topic:
Americans use and dispose of at least 100 billion bags every year. Although the plastics industry points out that plastic grocery bags are made more from natural gas than petroleum, natural gas is not a renewable resource and contributes to global warming. And about only 5 percent of all plastic bags are recycled nationwide. The rest end up in the trash, hanging in trees or floating in water where they menace marine life.
There are other possible remedies, including a constructive idea that has taken hold in Ireland. In 2002, Ireland became the first country in the world to impose a tax on plastic bags. Use of the bags dropped by 90 percent, and proceeds from the tax went to environmental causes.
If Ireland is any guide, tax laws may have greater impact on human behavior than recycling laws. Tax law could also be written to apply to an entire state, thus eliminating the need for town-by-town bans.
Today the Times' Web site has publised two letters to the editor in response to that editorial -- including one opposed to bag taxes. The counterpoint comes from Cal Dooley, president and CEO of the American Chemistry Council. Here's what he has to say:
We all want a cleaner environment, and based on the facts, your editorial misses the mark.
Bans and taxes penalize consumers and are not effective at preventing litter or enhancing our environment. Instead, consumers buy new bags to replace the grocery bags, because 92 percent of consumers reuse plastic grocery bags for a variety of household purposes. Ireland’s tax actually led to a 400 percent increase in the purchase of other types of plastic bags.
Moreover, plastic-bag bans generally increase demand for paper bags, increase energy use by 70 percent and double greenhouse gas emissions.
The more environmentally sustainable solution is to promote recycling. Plastic bag and film recycling grew 24 percent in 2006, and is being embraced from coast to coast, from California to New York City and Rhode Island.
Plastics are a valuable resource -- too valuable to waste -- and should be recycled. Let’s work together to promote recycling.
I think Dooley's response was on target. Recycling is the solution, and ACC (as well as communities and retailers) need to play a role. But, obviously, there's a lot more to be said on the topic. What other points should he have made?
Here's an attention-getting idea for plastics recyclers that are looking for some attention from their local media: a company in Tempe, Ariz., has set up a program to recycle campaign signs after election day.
Most of the signs are made out of corrugated plastic sheet, so there's obviously some value to the material. So Plastics General Inc. is willing to grind old signs and sell the material to processors to make new products, according to this story from The Arizona Republic.
"There are a lot of applications for these materials," Bill Wiess, ombudsman for Plastics General, told the newspaper. "It's a renewable resource and it's better than a landfill."
The company has even set up drop-off locations where candidates can bring signs to be recycled after the Nov. 4 election. Good idea!
The Boston Globe's Sunday magazine had a big feature story about plastics yesterday, and it's noteworthy that the story was quite positive. It feels a little weird blogging on this one, since I'm a source quoted in the story. But a half dozen people who saw the story yesterday have already mentioned it to me today. So I thought I should point it out to those who missed it.
The story has a headline that will attract attention, especially from plastics industry members used to negative media attention. The title: "In Praise of Plastic: Why an oil-sucking, landfill-clogging, non-biodegradable, it's-everywhere material is so good for the environment. Really."
Here's a taste of the story:
Plastic -- symbol of a bankrupt consumer society from its maxed-out credit cards to its obsession with in-bulk acquisition -- is about as popular these days as an oil spill. People love to hate plastic for the petroleum used to produce it, for the litter it becomes, for the space it takes up in landfills, and the damage it can do in oceans. At one point this year in the United States alone, the plastics industry faced some 400 pieces of anti-plastics legislation, including one on Beacon Hill and another in Plymouth. Plastic bags -- for the plastic-haters, anyway -- are especially evil. The goal of most of the proposed laws is taxing the use of plastic bags or banning them outright. And though most have failed or wound up tabled, the anti-plastics people have had their victories, too. Namely, Seattle.
In July, the city of Seattle banned polystyrene takeout food packaging (think Styrofoam coffee cups or soup bowls) and placed a 20-cent tax on plastic bags that is set to go into effect January 1. The City Council's vote, supported by the mayor, shook a plastics industry that was still reeling from a panic in the spring. Parents concerned over the use of a possibly harmful chemical called bisphenol A, found in some clear plastic baby bottles among other things, ditched the bottles in droves, and some stores and manufacturers did the same. Then there was the phthalate ban, enacted by Congress over the summer, singling out yet another worrisome chemical often found in plastic toys.
Overall, it has been a bad year for plastics. But, quietly, the plastics industry, plastics engineers, and plastics lovers -- yes, they do exist -- are making a case for what may be a misunderstood touchstone of our times. "We see the legislative debates as an opportunity to tell the story of plastics," says Steve Russell, managing director of the plastics division at the American Chemistry Council, the group that represents the plastics industry. "And we believe there's a great story to tell." Plastics, Russell and others argue, aren't just durable, convenient, and inexpensive to manufacture; innovative new plastic packaging is actually more energy-efficient than other alternatives and helps users reduce, not increase, their carbon footprints.
The story goes on to tout the benefits of plastics in packaging, automobiles, aircraft and construction.
The underlying message is that plastics have plenty of positive attributes and don't deserve the bad reputation they have accumulated over the years.
But the industry's poor recycling record is front-and-center. "... Plastics are recyclable, able in most cases to be used over and over again," the story states. "The problem is, Americans, even as global warming becomes an accepted truth, don't take recycling seriously. In 2006, Americans consumed more than 29 million tons of plastic, but recycled just 2 million tons of it, a paltry 7 percent."
I have a feeling some in the plastics industry will miss that point and focus instead on the rare praise found elsewhere in the article.
Regardless, I'm pleased to see that reporter Keith O'Brien did such a thorough, well written story about plastics. I will be recommending the article to others who are looking for background information about the industry.
Plastics get a couple of mentions in Wal-Mart Canada's new corporate sustainability report, which was released today. The references come in the report's "environment" section. Here are the relevant snippets:
Wal-Mart Canada is aggressively pursuing its long-term sustainability goals: to be supplied by 100 per cent renewable energy; to produce zero waste; and to sell merchandise that sustains resources and the environment.
The company made several notable strides in 2007 including the expansion of its waste diversion program to include additional types of plastics. As a result of Wal-Mart Canada's multi-stream recycling program, the company was able to divert more than 100,000,000 kilograms of waste from landfill.
Given that 92 per cent of the company's waste is the result of product packaging, Wal-Mart Canada established new criteria to assess suppliers and supply chain partners on the basis of their environmental efforts, impact and improvement. In addition, suppliers were invited to participate in two sustainable packaging expos, in conjunction with the Packaging Association of Canada, where they were educated on new sustainable packaging materials, technologies, designs and alternatives. Wal-Mart Canada is on the verge of rolling out its new packaging scorecard, a roadmap designed to help suppliers reduce their individual packaging.
I wanted more information about the "additional types of plastics" that are being recycled, as mentioned in the news release. So I checked out the relevant section of the full report. Here's what it has to say:
Over the years, our in-store recycling efforts have grown in scope and complexity. Initially our stores recycled just cardboard. In 2006 we added plastic film to the mix. In 2007 we evolved to include virtually every type of plastic waste generated in our stores, from hangers to pill bottles. The materials are compacted together to create “sandwich bales” (a layer of plastic between two layers of cardboard), eventually sold at a profit for Wal-Mart for re-use by others.
Finally, here's what the report has to say about plastics (and other materials) in connection to the company's packaging scorecard:
Packaging reduction offers huge environmental and business benefits. Globally we’re targeting a five per cent reduction in packaging for merchandise sold in our stores by 2013. We will need to work closely with our suppliers to reach this goal.
n 2007 Wal-Mart Canada held two sustainable packaging expositions, in partnership with the Packaging Association of Canada and 120 exhibitors, to help educate many of our suppliers
and other businesses on new sustainable packaging materials, technologies, designs and alternatives. On the strength of the first exposition, the second exposition was the largest attended one-day packaging event in Canada’s history.
In 2008 Wal-Mart Canada will introduce a packaging scorecard to measure suppliers and their products on these criteria: package reduction and elimination; use of materials that are biodegradable or have residual value; commitments to reduce emissions or use renewable energy in the creation of packaging and support for programs that encourage recycling.
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. obviously can move a lot of mountains in the packaging and recycling sectors. And with a goal of eventually cutting waste to zero, the company still has some heavy lifting to do. A lot of plastics packaging companies around the world are watching every Wal-Mart move very carefully.
Plastics recycling continues to get a lot of attention in the mainstream media. Cleveland's The Plain Dealer is the latest to weigh in, with a feature today that looks at effort and payback of recycling. The story attempts to answer the common question, is the effort of recycling worth the trouble?
Here's what reporter John Campanelli has to say about plastics recycling:
What it is: Water bottles, milk jugs, yogurt containers, etc.
Market price per ton: $500 for water and soda bottles (code No. 1 plastic), $800 for milk cartons and other HDPE plastics (code No. 2).
Benefits: Recycling a ton of plastic bottles saves almost four barrels of oil and 200 cubic feet of landfill space.
Downsides: Before recycling, plastics need to be sorted into their different polymer groups (those tiny numbers inside triangles you see on the products). Plastic water and soda bottles are also rarely recycled into more bottles. Instead, they end up in other products, like carpeting or synthetic fabrics.
How we are doing: Americans recycle about 24 percent of their plastic bottles. Recycling rates for other kinds of plastics are lower.
Campanelli gives plastics recycling the equivalent of three-and-a-half stars (he actually uses little recycling bins instead). That's behind steel, paper and aluminum, but ahead of glass. His sources for plastics information include the American Chemistry Council and, for pricing data, the Cuyahoga County Solid Waste District.
Plastics' light weight is a disadvantage when it comes to recycling. But the volume and homogeneity of products like milk jugs and soda bottles make recycling a natural. I've been getting a couple of calls per week from newspaper reporters doing stories on plastics recycling, so don't be surprised to see more coverage coming soon to a paper near you.
For its efforts today, I'll give The Plain Dealer four little recycling bins.
There's been a lot of attention on plastics recycling lately, thanks in part to the high cost of virgin resin. It reminds me a little bit of the early 1990s, when recycling was part of my beat. At the time, it seemed like I was getting phone calls every week from people interested in starting plastics recycling companies. Who will buy our material, they asked. How much will they pay?
A handful of those pioneering companies are still around today. Many more didn't last more than a few years.
Like now, prices for virgin resin were inflated back then, in part because of Gulf War. (The explosion at the Phillips 66 Co. plant in Pasadena, Texas, also contributed to the rise in virgin HDPE prices).
A couple of recycling-related items caught my attention today. First, this plastics recycling backgrounder came from Consumer Reports magazine's Greener Choices electronic newsletter. It's a decent source of information that doesn't slip into the common mistake of describing some plastics as unrecyclable, or worse. Nice job.
Second, I noticed this story from the Indiana Gazette newspaper's Web site in Indiana, Pa., which notes that the local recycling program is actually generating a profit this year thanks to rising prices for recyclables, especially newsprint and cardboard. (Unfortunately the borough doesn't collect plastic yet, but it may start soon).
Plastics recycling is a cyclical business, and if virgin resin prices start to drop, some recyclers will consider that pretty bad news.
Here's a post that's sure to make some Plastics Blog readers angry. It's a Web-based cartoon called Gorilla in the Greenhouse, and its first episode is devoted to plastic bag litter.
I don't think most readers will have a problem with the idea of communicating to kids that they shouldn't litter, or that they should recycle or reuse things like plastic bags. Those messages are in the cartoon. The part I think some will find objectionable is how the cartoonist portrays the plastic bag company. The factory is run by some smarmy characters named Wormulus and Dr. Hufflebot, a "destructive duo" bent on world domination. In this episode, titled the "Great Pacific Garbage Patch" (which not a new concept to this blog's readers), Wormulus and Hufflebot are creating billions of plastic bags in order to create a floating empire called Baglandia.
Remember, this is aimed at little kids. The tone is that plastics are bad, and factories are run by evil people. The Web site urges kids to push for legislative bag bans -- they're told that's the only real solution to the problem.
Thanks to the Los Angeles Times' Daily Deal Travel blog, of all places, for alerting me to this cartoon.
Sustainability is the latest buzzword in the plastics industry, and now some universities seem to believe it's an issue that will be with us for a long time. The latest to jump on board -- specifically related to plastics -- are the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia, and Queen's University Belfast in Northern Ireland.
The universities announced the news today. Their agreement -- they call it a "partnership to promote plastics sustainability" -- "will accelerate research into new-generation plastics that are biodegradable, and environmentally friendly manufacturing techniques," according to the release. Peter Halley, director of the Centre for High Performance Polymers in the Australian university's School of Engineering, said polymer research was vital in developing a sustainable future for the plastics industry.
“The partnership connects leading researchers and research laboratories in nanocomposites, biopolymers and polymer processing, and allows us to share equipment and expertise,” Halley said.
In the United States, the University of Massachusetts Lowell has a sustainability effort with a notable plastics angle. (It's interesting that UMass Lowell also has a "Precautionary Principle Project," a topic that also of interest to the plastics industry.)
To learn more about sustainability, check out the Sustain '08 conference in November organized by Plastics News Global Group and the Society of the Plastics Industry Inc.
Here's some bad news -- within 10 years, the price of plastic resin will be so high that it may be economically worthwhile to dig up landfills and collect the stuff that we're throwing away today.
That's the story from Plastics & Rubber Weekly, our sister publication in Europe. Online editor Katie Coyne has a story today quoting Peter Mills, a waste specialist from New Earth Solutions Ltd., who says plastic prices are fast reaching a point where mining landfills will be a viable option.
Mills says plastics in well maintained landfills should be perfectly preserved. He adds that another source of material could be all the plastic marine debris that's causing so many problems today.
So I guess there's some good news here too -- higher resin prices will mean less litter, and people (and companies) will be willing to recycle more.
Since many experts in resin pricing think prices are going to go down next year, I wonder how many years away we really are from starting to dig in landfills for old plastic trash.
"We're getting a bit tired of this distraction campaign, frankly," said John Mullinder, executive director of the Etobicoke, Ontario-based PPEC. He says the plastics industry leadership "resorts to taking cheap shots at paper, using emotive and non-scientific terms such as 'environmentally friendly' (a meaningless term, according to the Canadian Standards Association and the Canadian Competitions Bureau) and 'tree-hungry' paper bags."
The plastics industry is also fond of trotting out so-called scientific or "life cycle" studies, PPEC says, many of them commissioned by themselves, and others that have little relevance to Canada and Canadian circumstances. "There is no, repeat no, peer-reviewed life cycle analysis of paper and plastic grocery bags used in Canada that meets ISO standards. In fact, we would welcome a credible analysis that recognizes the environmental impact of manufacturing polymers from oil and natural gas and shipping plastic resin and/or bags all the way from coal-dependent China. That would be interesting."
It's interesting to see the competitive arguments between plastics and paper. To add some perspective to the story, let me add that the paper industry rarely sees the sort of negative perception that the plastics industry is constantly battling. As an example, here's a feature titled "The dangers of plastic bags" on the Stroudsburg, Pa.-based Pocono Record newspaper's Web site. I see this type of thing every day. When's the last time you saw a "dangers of paper bags" feature in the mainstream media?
The San Diego Union-Tribune's Web site has a story today about the city of Solana Beach, Calif., linking up with Trex Co. Inc. to recycle plastic bags.
This is an unusual step, for a community to make a deal directly with a manufacturer like Trex. Kyle Pogue, a supervisor at the California Integrated Waste Management Board, told the newspaper that Solana Beach could serve as a model for other cities.
The idea came from Debbie Sandler, described as a stay-at-home mom involved in school recycling efforts.
The story also notes that Solana Beach has a reputation for embracing environmental initiatives.
Trex is a major recycler, using waste film and other materials to make decking. A Washington Poststory recently noted that the company boosted its profit last quarter thanks to "improving productivity and buying lower-quality recycled plastics."
Time magazine's Web site has a feature story today on Stephen L. Joseph, head of the Save the Plastic Bag campaign. The story's headline calls Joseph "The Patron Saint of Plastic Bags."
In the pantheon of lost causes, defending the plastic grocery bag would seem to be right up there with supporting smoking on planes or the murder of puppies. The thin white ubiquitous bag has moved squarely beyond eyesore and into the realm of public nuisance, a symbol of waste and excess and the incremental destruction of nature. But where there's an industry at risk, there's an attorney, and the plastic bag's advocate-in-chief is Stephen L. Joseph, head of the quixotically titled Save the Plastic Bag campaign.
Ouch.
The former Washington lobbyist, who was born in England and reluctantly gives his age as 50-something, admits it's an uphill battle trying to improve the image of a throwaway item that has been tied to everything from global warming to dependence on oil and the death of marine life. Especially in California. Particularly in ultra-liberal Marin County. It took him more than a year after the bag manufacturers came calling to take on the cause. "It's very challenging to counter the myths and misinformation," he says from his Tiburon, Calif., law offices. "I'm a one man show."
One-man show is an exaggeration, of course. It's interesting to see that Time discovered Joseph -- perhaps his reputation as a publicist is well deserved. Anyway, there are others who have been crusading on behalf of plastic bags -- and at this point, it looks like they all can use some help.
The Consumerist blog has an interesting photo, and an active comment section, with a post today about the PLA bottle used by Primo Water Corp.
Titled "The incredible shrinking water bottle," the blog has a photo of two Primo bottles, one that apparently shrunk to half its regular size after being left in a car in the hot Houston sun. The post concludes: "Degradable bottles seem like a good idea, we just don't want them degrading inside of our cars."
I'm not too alarmed about half-empty PLA bottles shrinking in my car. But I'm still not convinced that water bottles are the best target market for PLA. It would be a much better idea to get people to recycle their PET bottles instead. A 10 cent deposit on water bottles would work wonders.
It looks like sailing across the Pacific Ocean in a craft made of plastic bottles isn't an original idea after all.
A few weeks ago I wrote about the upcoming voyage of The Plastiki, a boat made of post-consumer plastic bottles that is preparing to make a San Francisco-to-Australia voyage.
Today I'll share news of a similar trip, from Hermosa Beach, Calif., to Hawaii, by a sailboat called Junk.
Junk, which is made from 15,000 plastic bottles, is scheduled to set sail on Sunday. The trip's aim is to "raise awareness about plastic debris fouling our oceans," according to the project's blog.
If the marine debris issue isn't on your radar now, I think it's going to be very soon.
Junk is part of the Algalita Marine Foundation's "Message in a Bottle" project, all aimed at problems associated with plastic debris.
I had more fun with this post when I imagined that Jim Cramer delivered it by screaming at me from my TV.
Cramer today picked Owens-Illinois Inc. stock as a "buy" on the CNBC "Stop Trading!' segment. He gave a pretty anti-plastics reason for the selection. O-I makes glass bottles, and Cramer likes glass a lot more than plastics.
"I have to emphasize to people," Cramer said, "at a certain point we're going to come around. ... Glass doesn't have toxins.
"Everybody else uses glass around the globe. You can recycle it 30 times," Cramer said. He predicted that consumers will turn to glass instead of plastic.
I assume he knows that glass is also heavy, which makes it costlier to transport, and that it uses more energy to create than plastics. Those would seem to be very important considerations with oil near $130 per barrel.
And someone might want to talk to him about that plastics=toxins theory.
Elizabeth Royte, a noted science and environmental author, has a new book, "Bottlemania: How Water Went On Sale And Why We Bought It," that's going to be in the news in the next few weeks. Here's a link to a review from the Huffington Post, and an excerpt from the book, courtesy of alternet.org.
From the excerpt, it is clear that Royte is a good writer. She weaves facts and humor together in an entertaining style:
Like iPods and cell phones, bottled water is private, portable, and individual. It's factory- sealed and untouched by human hands-a far cry from the public water fountain. (Fiji exploits this subliminal germophobia with its slogan "Untouched by Man," as does a company called Ice Rocks that sells "hygienic ice cubes"-springwater hermetically packaged in disposable plastic.) Somehow, we've become a nation obsessed with hygiene and sterility. Never, outside of an epidemic, have we been more afraid of our own bodies. Supermarkets provide antibacterial wipes for shopping cart handles. Passengers bring their own linens to cover airline pillows. Supermarkets wrap ears of corn in plastic: corn still in its husk! (The downside, besides mountains of waste, is the development of super-resistant bacteria immune to most of the commonly used antibiotics.)
There's also a fun story about how she didn't take a taste of Poland Spring water when she visited Tom Brennan, natural resources manager for Nestle Waters North America, in a visit to Hollis, Maine, because Royte was afraid she'd like it more than the tap water she brought to the interview.
Watch for more coverage of "Bottlemania," and an accompanying new wave of TV and new reports critical of the bottled water sector.
You might think that Wisconsin would have no trouble recycling dairy containers of all types. But you'd be wrong. The city of Madison, Wis., no longer wants certain plastic containers in its curbside bins, including yogurt, ice cream and whipped butter, because they say no recyclerwants them.
City recycling coordinator George Dreckmann toldThe Capital Times that the market for plastic bottles is strong, but not for other types of containers.
"We are sorry to announce this change," Dreckmann said. "We have no end users for old dairy tubs so we can't recycle them any longer."
I'm surprised that Madison ever collected these seldom-recycled containers, which might be used in plastic lumber.
This development has me thinking: Plastic bags are another important low-cost feedstock for plastic lumber makers. If bag makers are counting on lumber extruders to handle a big influx of grocery bags, I hope the lumber makers are ready to handle the increased volume. It would be a public relations nightmare to put a lot of bag recycling programs in place, and then find that the market has collapsed or that all the bags end up getting shipped to overseas recyclers.
Having your heart in the right place is a nice quality. But it often makes for bad public policy, and in the case of Baltimore City Councilman James Kraft, D-1, the practice of putting his emotions first seems to have displaced his head.
He equated using plastic bags with Nazi extermination tactics at a City Council meeting earlier this week.
“We don’t want to be criticized by future generations for not doing enough now as were those who dealt with the Germans then,” Kraft said.
So what follows? Should those who use plastic bags be charged with murder? Genocide?
The editorial goes on to suggest that instead of trying to ban plastic bags, Kraft try less drastic measures to improve the environment, such as asking the city of Baltimore to stop buying bottled water, requiring city employees to pay for their own parking to encourage them to use public transportation, and doing more to encourage plastic bag recycling.
Men.style.com, the online home of GQ and Details magazines, has a short blurb and photograph today about a plastics-related environmental project that I had not seen before.
David de Rothschild, described as a "banking heir and Global Warming Survival Handbook author,", plans to set sail in December on an 8,000-mile journey from San Francisco to Australia, on a boat named The Plastiki, made from post-consumer plastic bottles.
The trip will take him through the Eastern Garbage Patch, the area in the Pacific Ocean where floating plastic is said to vastly outnumber marine plankton.
It will be interesting to see what approach the Plastiki voyagers take to encouraging solutions to the marine debris problem.
Plastic threat to sea life 'exaggerated' -- That's the headline on a news story from The Australian, a Sydney, Australia, newspaper. That was enough to get my attention.
The thrust of the story is that Colin Limpus, introduced as "Australia's leading authority on sea turtles," believes that environmentalists who are lobbying to ban plastic shopping bags are exaggerating their impact on marine life.
"This has been picked up by the conservation community, but these bags would only account for a small proportion of plastic-related injuries," said Limpus, a scientist with the Queensland Environmental Protection Agency.
The bigger threats, according to Limpus: careless boaters and fishing nets.
As he helped release into Moreton Bay 13 sea turtles that had recuperated after being taken sick or injured to Sea World on the Gold Coast, Dr Limpus identified boat strikes as the biggest threat to turtle populations in coastal waters.
About 100 large turtles are killed each year by boats in southeast Queensland compared with an average of 20 boat-related deaths in the late-1980s.
"These animals are mainly adults which take 30 years to reach breeding age, so the losses are substantial," Dr Limpus said.
Conservationists have used sea turtle and other marine animal deaths as a key argument in their campaign to eliminate plastic shopping bags.
The campaign has often cited a Canadian study to demonstrate that 100,000 animals are killed annually by the bags, although the study identified discarded fishing nets as the cause.
If the government really is serious about protecting turtles, it should regulate the speed of boats in areas frequented by turtles, dugongs and other vulnerable marine animals, Limpus said.
"The problem is that the boats are moving so fast that the animals don't have time to get out of the way and below the propeller," he said.
The newspaper also talked to Clean Up Australia chief executive Kerrie-Ann Johnson, who insisted that the impact of plastic bags on marine life had not been exaggerated. She cited a study by the Australian Marine Conservation Society -- although that group's spokesman denied that it had conducted such a study.
It looks like Limpus is using the raging plastic bag ban in Australia to try to focus attention on what he considers a more serious problem. Good for him.
Still, I don't think this is a signal that the marine debris issue isn't real. It's not going away -- especially in California and Hawaii.
Most of the stories we see about plastic product bans and taxes quote only people in favor of the restrictions. In fact, often if seems like there's no one at all, outside a few vocal bag makers and their suppliers, who are fighting the trend. So this story from the Palo Alto, Calif., Daily News has a "man-bites-dog" tone -- it's a city where some businesses have actually decided to fight against restrictions on plastic bags and polystyrene foam containers.
According to the story, about 40 businesses are supporting a petition that will be presented to the Palo Alto City Council tonight. The businesses say a ban would not work, and would hurt local stores and restaurants.
"Please don't punish local businesses just to make an empty environmental gesture," the petition reads. "Products don't litter, people do."
The City Council is tentatively set to take action on a bag ban on April 21, and it expects to look at restrictions on PS foam containers this summer.
The story quotes council member Yoriko Kishimoto saying she supports a ban.
"To me it seems like a no-brainer," Kishimoto told the Daily News. "I believe we definitely need to drastically reduce our use of plastic bags." She added that cities have tried for years to increase their plastic bag recycling rates, but the rate still hovers at about 5 percent.
I'm skeptical of that point. I have seen very few efforts by municipalities anywhere to recycle plastic bags -- typically they expect grocery stores to handle that chore.
MSNBC has in interesting story today on how the plastics industry, specifically T-shirt bag makers and their suppliers, are battling the wave of bans and taxes that started in San Francisco and seems to be sweeping across America.
Sometimes there's a tendency in stories like this to make industry into a villain, but that's not the case here. I think this story is pretty fair. Both sides of the issue have their say, including two representatives from the Progressive Bag Affiliates, Donna Dempsey and Keith Christman.
Here's an excerpt:
The plastics industry had no intention of allowing the San Francisco model to spread without a fight, though. It quickly and quietly joined with retailers and other business interests and launched a successful counterattack, using lobbying muscle to quash proposed bans. In the face of the onslaught, the cities have instituted voluntary recycling programs that proponents of the bans say are ineffective and likely to remain so.
And in at least two instances, plastics interests have turned the tables on their green adversaries by filing lawsuits on environmental grounds in an effort to prevent bans from taking effect.
“The plastic industry … will try to win local battle by local battle,” says Marc Mihaly, director of the environmental law center at Vermont Law School. “They will intimidate where they can. If they can’t intimidate … they will try to influence legislators.”
Plastics industry representatives attribute their successes to a growing realization that plastic bans are misguided.
“The trend is that cities who are taking a look at what San Francisco did … are all taking a step back and going toward recycling,” said Donna Dempsey, a spokeswoman for Progressive Bag Affiliates, which represents plastic bag makers.
The so-far scattered skirmishes are part of a grander battle over bags, a conflict in which plastic and paper industries are fighting for supermarket supremacy while fending off an ecological newcomer: the reusable fabric bag.
The "scattered skirmishes" characterization is interesting. It seems like every week -- almost every day -- I see proposals pop up somewhere to tax or ban plastic bags. In the past week, Massachusetts joined the party, and the plastics industry is preparing for a battle in the United Kingdom, according to our sister publication Plastics & Rubber Weekly.
Does the plastics industry have a winning strategy for fighting bag bans? If not, what should it be doing differently?
Wisconsin is the newest state to debate a ban on plastic grocery bags, according to this story from the Madison, Wis., The Capital Times. The bill was introduced by two Democratic state legislators, Mark Pocan, a represenative from Madison, and Bob Jauch, a senator from Poplar.
The story quotes Brandon Scholz of the Wisconsin Grocers Association saying that biodegradable bags are too expensive, and that consumers have not been pushing for a ban. He also noted that many retailers collect plastic bags for recycling.
"You're finding more and more grocery stores providing receptacles for their customers to bring the bags back," he said. "And there is a market for those bags."
Pocan, one of the bill sponsors, made one point in the story that is a more than a bit simplistic. The story attributes this information to him:
... because plastic bags are made with petroleum, they increase the United States' reliance on foreign crude oil, Pocan said. Biodegradable bags, in contrast, are made with the starch from corn and other agricultural products.
In North America, most polyethylene is made from natural gas, not oil. And agricultural products may come from sunshine and rainbows, but it takes a lot of energy to harvest the crops and turn them into starch-based resins -- by some measures, more energy than is used to make conventional plastics.
Mardi Gras, like Cher's comeback tours, are annual events that muddy up my daily searches for plastics-related news. The problem with Cher, obviously, is that every story written about her since 1985 has a prominent mention of plastic surgery.
With Mardi Gras, the problem is the fascination that some sectors of the news media have with those cheap plastic beads.
Let's ignore why they focus on the beads and consider this important question: can the beads be recycled? This story, from the New Iberia, La., newspaper The Daily Iberian, answers the question:
Residents wanting to donate their Mardi Gras collectibles might check with the art departments at the area schools. Bobby Guidry at Allied Waste said that in the past he has heard of art departments accepting beads for upcoming projects. However, one thing residents cannot do with all those beads is fill up their recycling bins.
“While they are plastic, they are considered contaminated because of the string that holds them together,” Guidry said.
That makes sense to me, although I'm sure some imaginative plastic lumber maker could extrude a very colorful park bench or picnic table out of a waste stream of mixed colorful beads. Anyone want to give it a try?
The Iberian story has some other great alternatives to throwing the beads away. It points out that, at least locally, Goodwill takes used beads all year long, sorts them and sells them back to the public. That sounds like a very good idea.
What's better for the environment, using less resin to make a PET bottle, or using more material but incorporating recycled plastic into the container? This is one of those questions where the answer depends on your priorities.
First, it's nice to see that they actually look at materials pricing, which is an important consideration for plastics processors and their customers. They also consider landfill tipping costs, since there is a hidden cost to handle all of the PET bottles that aren't recycled, too.
The conclusion: although landfilling used PET bottles is cheaper in the short run, it is wasteful (a half a billion dollars worth of PET bottles were sent to landfills in 2005, acccording to the Container Recycling Institute), especially with virgin resin prices rising. So they acknowledge that using less virgin resin, by making lighter bottles, is a priority, as well as making an effort to use recycled material, too.
“Are we all going to show up in front of the Sun-Times and Tribune building and say, ‘Here’s your plastic bags. You have to take them back?’ Remember, it’s you who’s doing it. You wrap your newspapers in plastic. You should take them back, right? You have a responsibility.”
The mayor added, “Everybody’s against plastic. But let’s think about all the industries it has to do with. I’d rather see the industries do it themselves, truthfully. Not all of the sudden, [say] they want a fine. They want us to sue you. Let’s work this out. [Let’s have] a voluntary approach.”
Add Matt Lauer, host of NBC's "Today" show, to the list of celebrities who are taking a stand against plastic bags. According to the Business & Media Institute Web site, Lauer "pestered shoppers at a Manhattan grocery store for the last installment of the “Today Goes Green” series on January 25."
“Paper or plastic? Turns out the right answer should be neither,” Lauer said, adding that Americans dispose of 100 billion plastic bags every year. “And where does it all go? Everywhere. Just about every piece of plastic we’ve every used still exists, clogging up landfills, spilling over the landscape for washing out to sea.”
“I’m on the prowl for victims, converts in our growing movement,” Lauer said while roaming the aisles of an upscale Food Emporium store in the Bridgemarket neighborhood of New York City. He stopped shoppers to ask questions like, “Do you have any idea how many plastic bags you accumulate in the average month?”
According to the report, Lauer was mostly encouraging shoppers to use reusable totes instead of paper or plastic. He told one that "If you think that we throw away a hundred billion plastic a year, it’s like taking 12 million barrels of oil and dumping it down the drain."
The Business & Media Institute report -- the group says its mission is to "audit the media's coverage of the free enterprise system ... to bring balance to economic reporting and to promote fair portrayal of the business community in the media" -- notes that "...the United States imported more than 10 million barrels of crude oil per day in 2006. Even if Lauer's figure is accurate, plastic bags account for only 0.32 percent of the oil imported into the United States every year."
Much of the mainstream media clearly is embracing the "use less stuff" movement, which in large part seems to be a "use less plastics" movement. Are consumers following their lead? And how will it impact plastics product manufacturers?
Here's a story about in-house recycling that a lot of processors could learn from -- and that many could try to pitch to their own local media.
Hoffer Plastics Corp., a South Elgin, Ill., injection molder, is the subject of the feature in the Arlington Heights, Ill., Daily Herald newspaper. It expalins how the company has made a commitment to recycling in late 2007 -- and how the decision is paying off.
In December, the company didn't send any waste to the landfill, according to Gretchen Hoffer Farb, the company's director of supply chain management.
"We're doing everything we can to sustain the environment and recycle. We send truckloads of plastic to a Jackson, Mo., recycler every week," Farb told the newspaper.
Farb said that value is translating to benefits for employees as well.
She estimates the company -- South Elgin's biggest employer -- will net more than $100,000 in the coming year from the initiative.
Although it takes workers more time to sort the materials, some of the funds will or have been used for employee recognition, the summer picnic and a Christmas gift for each worker.
"Without all the employees doing it, it wouldn't be successful," Farb said. "It's extra work, but everybody's embraced it."
Congratulations to Hoffer on implementing this successful program.
There's been a flurry of news about plastic bag bans this week, including news that China will ban some bags (I imagine that will be a very difficult law to enforce), and Australia may do the same.
On top of that, today the New York City Council voted not to ban bags, but to require many retailers to recycle them. (Check out the flurry of comments at that link, a couple of dozen in just a few hours!)
The New York Times weighs in on the issue here, with a quick opinion piece encouraging readers not to use plastic bags at all:
Plastic bags now represent an estimated three percent of the waste stream — and that percentage is rising. It can, however, be reduced through effective recycling.
Some municipalities already have such programs, but none is as sweeping as the measure passed today by the New York City Council. It would require plastic bag recycling for stores of at least 5,000 square feet or stores belonging to chains with more than five locations in the city.
Considering the size of the New York market, where about one billion plastic bags are used every year, the mandate is enormous. The law could go into effect by early summer.
What will become of these bags? They can find new life pressed into durable composite lumber, like that used in decks and boardwalks. Or they could be made into more plastic bags, and presumably re-recycled indefinitely.
Better still, the new law might just encourage people to forego the plastic and carry their own reusable bag for shopping and chores.
After all, from an environmental perspective, the best answer to the ubiquitous question “Paper or plastic?” is “Neither.”
The Associated Press has a fairly good laundry list of bag bans, taxes and other laws around the globe, although this seems to be a list that changes almost daily.
The New York Times is officially in favor of banning plastic bags. In an editorial posted on Dec. 2, the paper said "banning plastic bags would be a relatively effortless way to protect the environment, save energy and reduce a danger to wildlife as well as dogs and other pets."
Here's an excerpt from the column:
Here are some facts: Unlike paper bags, which can be easily recycled, relatively few plastic bags (about 7 percent) are ever used a second time. They last what seems an eternity, probably longer than most of the people using them. They put toxins in the soil, water and food chain. They are made of oil, something we should be saving rather than using when we do not need it. (It takes millions of barrels of oil to make the 100 billion plastic bags that Americans use in a year.)
And, as you may have noticed, they fly and tumble with the wind — to bodies of water where they endanger fish and aquatic life and to low-lying shrubs, lawns and woodlands where they pose a real danger for wildlife and pets that get tangled up in them. Dogs have been known to choke on them.
This column goes a bit farther than a column the paper ran on Nov. 25, which supported a bill that would encourage recycling of plastic bags.
The Houston Chronicle, meantime, had a story on its Web site this weekend on how plastic bag makers including Superbag Corp. and the Progressive Bag Alliance trade group are fighting back against bag ban proposals -- and New York is a key battleground.
The plastic bag industry hopes that recycling programs, if passed in some major cities, could serve as models for the rest of the nation.
"We believe New York is the tipping point," said Isaac Bazbaz, whose family owns Superbag, a major plastic bag supplier to Wal-Mart that has its headquarters and factory in northwest Houston.
Bazbaz has spent more than $1 million to start the Progressive Bag Alliance, in part because he believes the industry has gotten a bad rap.
"We have been good corporate citizens," he said. "We just don't understand why no one has taken the time to hear our story."
This issue seems to surface somewhere new every week. It's interesting to see the PBA take a leading role in this debate.
Some provincial legislators in Alberta, Canada, must be very serious about boosting plastics recycling, because they've proposed putting a 10 cent deposit on milk containers. That's according to this story from the Calgary Sun newspaper's Web site.
The story says the province is suffering from "poor recycling rates," but the numbers cited are actually pretty decent: a 52 percent recycling rate for plastic jugs, 28 percent of cartons and 24 percent of juice boxes.
Also part of the proposed plan: doubling the province's existing nickel-per-container deposit to a dime.
"Above all, the committee recognized that primarily this is an environmental issue," Denis Ducharme, a member of the legislative assembly. "Throughout its deliberations the committee was focused on the goal of ensuring that the recycling program is convenient and effective for the Alberta public."
Milk jugs certainly have recycling value, and putting a deposit on them would probably make the recycling rate skyrocket. Still, putting a deposit on milk seems like a big step. If Alberta slaps a deposit on milk, will other communities follow?
The bottled water debate seems to be everywhere these days. Today it even made the daily comics. The "Judge Parker" strip, of all places, tackles the topic.
For those of you who aren't "Judge Parker" fans, the star of the strip is a lawyer (really), Sam Driver. In the Nov. 14 strip, Driver's know-it-all adopted daughter Sophie is telling her stepfather about the perils of bottled water. Yesterday, she told us that in 2006, Americans spent $15 billion on bottled water. Today, she continues: "...the real downside is the plastic container. It accounts for nearly two billion pounds of landfill every year."
When "Judge Parker" discovers the recycling problem that's posed by PET water bottles, I think it's safe to say this is way beyond being a mainstream issue. I don't think threats to ban PET water bottles are serious, but don't rule out more taxes.
Here's a story from Columbus, Ohio, that's probably relevant just about anywhere in the country. It's about a pilot project called the Boat Shrinkwrap Recycling Program that plans to collect and recycle all the shrink wrap that boat owners are using now to prepare their craft to deal with the harsh winter elements.
In Ohio, the program has collected 240 tons of boat wrap and greenhouse plastic in the past two years, which a local company, Mondo Polymer Technologies Inc., used to manufacture about 48,000 guardrail blocks.
This shrink wrap has a lot of value, and it's a shame to throw it away. If local marinas in your area plan to trash the wrap next year, please help put them in touch with a local recycler that will handle the material.
Another member of the Bush family is getting involved in a plastics-related issue. According to The New York Times' CityRoom blog, Lauren Bush, "a fashion model and niece of President Bush," has endorsed a New York City Council bill that would require supermarkets and retail stores to collect and recycle plastic carryout bags.
Ms. Bush, 23, appeared at the Whole Foods Market in the Lower East Side this morning with the City Council speaker, Christine C. Quinn, who supports the legislation, which was introduced last week by Councilman Peter F. Vallone Jr., a Queens Democrat. At a news conference, Ms. Bush, who graduated from Princeton last year, said her interest in plastic bags began about four years ago, when she learned about their impact on the environment. Ms. Bush told reporters:
"The average American uses between 300 and 700 bags a year. To give you a visual of that number, if everyone in the U.S. were to make a giant chain with their plastic bag, it would wrap around the earth 760 times. That’s just the American annual consumption of plastic bags. And on top of that, plastic bags don’t biodegrade. They only break down into tiny toxic little bits that pollute the soil and our waterways. This process is called photodegrade and it takes around 1,000 years for these bags to break down in our landfills. It is for these reasons that I support this legislation in City Council. I think it is important for New Yorkers to recycle plastic bags and buy reusable bags."
The blog goes on to say that Lauren Bush promoted something called the FEED Bag, a reusable cloth bag that costs $60 and enables the United Nations World Food Program to feed a child for one full school year. Bush is an honorary spokeswoman for the program.
With Laura Bush (once again) speaking out on plastics and marine debris last week, it's starting to feel like the White House should have a cabinet-level appointee to handle plastics issues.
Some plastics processors in Kenya plan to skip next week's K trade show in Dusseldorf, Germany, in part because of high taxes on plastics.
That's the story from Nairobi's Business Daily, according to this report from allAfrica.com.
Hit by hefty taxes and stringent production standards, several Kenyan plastic makers have pulled out of the world's biggest plastics and rubber fair, which begins in Dusseldorf ,Germany, on Wednesday.
They say even if they learn new plastic manufacturing technologies in Germany they can not implement them in Kenya because the cost of producing plastics has gone up by 120 per cent following the passing of the Finance Bill on Tuesday.
Not all the Kenyans are skipping the show. The story quotes Parit Shah, managing director of Silpack Industries Ltd., saying he will go to the show anyway, not only to see new technology but to learn more about how companies in other countries are dealing with environmental issues.
That sounds like a better way to deal with the threat. I hope he finds what he's looking for.
The Progressive Bag Alliance announced today that it supports Wal-Mart's decision to offer reusable bags in some stores.
The Chicago Tribunereported today that Wal-Mart will sell cloth bags with the slogan "Paper or Plastic? Neither." The bags will cost $1 each.
PBA points out that reusable bags aren't for everyone, although it supports offering that option to consumers. But it suggested a few other steps that retailers can make "to provide sustainable bag options."
At-Store Recycling: Plastic grocery bags are 100% recyclable and retailers need to provide bins at their stores where customers recycle plastic bags. This provides a resource for the customer and a revenue stream for the retailer, who can sell the valuable recycled plastic.
Bagger Training: Retailers must ensure that employees at the checkout have the proper training to ensure that each bag is used efficiently to reduce waste. PBA members have used bagger training programs to successfully reduce waste for large supermarket chains.
Recycling Measurement: Retailers that offer at-store recycling should also adopt a simple accurate system of measurement. This provides concrete metrics by which they can track the success of their program and identify best practices that can be shared with others to encourage similar action.
PBA should be commended for this reasonable reaction to Wal-Mart's announcement.
Our sister newspaper Advertising Age weighs in on "the backlash against plastic bottles" with a Page 1 story in today's edition, "Nestle, Pepsi and Coke Face Their Waterloo."
The "Waterloo," according to the story, is a slowing market for bottled water (growth of only 9 percent this year, compared to 16 percent in 2006). Consumers, according to the story, are participating in a growing environmental backlash against plastic containers. As proof, the report cites moves to discourage bottled water purchases by the cities of New York and San Francisco, as well as a large numbers of Google hits for searches like "stop using plastic water bottles" and "bottled-water waste."
"This could be pretty significant," said Joe Pawlak, VP of restaurant consultant Technomic. "People are being more socially conscious, whether it's global warming, sustainability or landfills. I think it's an offshoot of the boomers wanting to leave a positive legacy."
The story covers alternatives to PET bottles, including $20 refillable aluminum containers, and $10 polycarbonate bottles. It also cites efforts to make PET bottles lighter, and to incorporate recycled content into the containers.
There's nothing really new here. Rather, it looks like a story that's trying to tie together a variety of recent developments and give readers a big picture look at the issue.
Still, it's interesting to see what Ad Age thinks marketing professionals need to know about the bottle issue. And the fact that the newspaper put the story on Page 1 shows that the editors there consider it a major story.
Maggie Joyce, a 10th grader in Brookline, Mass., wants people to use less polystyrene. Because her dad, Brian Joyce, happens to be a state senator in Massachusetts, Maggie Joyce got a chance to speak out on the topic in the state legislature yesterday, and to be featured in this story from the Quincy, Mass., Patriot Ledger.
The headline, "Senator’s daughter targeting Styrofoam," is what really caught my eye. According to the story, Maggie Joyce asked her father to propose a bill that would give towns across Massachusetts the option to ban polystyrene foam products.
Maggie, a tenth-grader at the Dexter School in Brookline, had been studying recycling with her class and became concerned after learning that polystyrene foam - known mainly by the trademarked Styrofoam - is made with petroleum.
‘‘This isn't so much about banning Styrofoam in the Commonwealth as it is about educating consumers about the detrimental impact of polystyrene on the environment, and asking individuals and corporations to seek alternative options,’’ Brian Joyce said.
Does this remind you of the late 1980s, when kids protesting and picketing McDonald's restaurants eventually convinced the company to drop the PS foam clamshell, even though the recplacement package was environmentally inferior?
The electronics industry is starting to go green, according to Greenpeace International -- and in their case, "green" means free from PVC and brominated flame retardants, among other things.
Since the guide was launched, many more products free from PVC (vinyl) plastic and brominated flame retardants (BFRs) are now available. A year ago, only Nokia and Sony Ericsson sold mobile phones free of one or both, now Motorola and [LG Electronics] do too. Sony has also added a wide range of products including models of the VAIO notebook, Walkman, camcorders and digital camera that are partially BFR and PVC free. Panasonic lists examples of PVC free products that include DVD players, home cinemas, video players and lighting, and two BFR-free models of lighting.
For the record, Nokia placed No. 1 on Greenpeace's report card, followed by Sony Ericsson.
Some Plastics News blog readers won't be happy that I'm citing Greenpeace today, and I understand that point of view. But clearly, the group has clout in the electronics industry, as we saw in May when Apple Inc. pledged to improve its environmental record after coming under heavy fire from environmentalists. Even if you disagree with Greenpeace, you should pay attention to what it is trying to do.
If you skipped the Emmys last night (I confess, I watched about 5 minutes), you missed a couple of plugs for plastics recycling, including one by host Ryan Seacrest. As he pointed out before a live TV audience, the carpeting at the 59th Primetime Emmy Awards was made from recycled PET bottles, as part of an effort to make the awards ceremony "green."
Making polyester carpet from recycled PET isn't really new or unusual, but it was nice to see it mentioned at such a prominent event. Some environmentalists belittle such efforts because they aren't closed-loop applications (in other words, old bottles don't become new bottles). But I think recycling a one-way container and using the new raw material in a durable application is a great story for plastics recycling.
First lady Laura Bush is again speaking out on the marine debris issue, with a letter to the editor published in the Wall Street Journal yesterday. The letter has some pointed criticism of plastics, but I think it's safe to say that the Bush family isn't really anti-plastics, despite some of the things she wrote that might come across that way. Rather, I think readers should focus instead on what she has to say about marine debris, and take the criticism to heart. This is a very big issue, especially in California and Hawaii, which is something that people elsewhere in the country still might not realize.
Since the WSJ's Web site is restricted to subscribers only, I can't share a link, but I will share the letter itself. She wrote it in response to a WSJ commentary that ran on Aug. 8 about thousands of plastic bathtub toys that were lost overboard in 1992 and continue to wash up on shore in various places around the world:
Curtis Ebbesmeyer's commentary "Rubber Ducky Frenzy" (editorial page, Aug. 8) about the thousands of bathtub toys lost overboard in 1992 highlights the persistent problem of marine debris in our oceans and along our coastlines.
I witnessed the grim toll marine debris takes on wildlife during my visit to Midway Atoll in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands last March. These islands are home to over 70% of the world's Laysan Albatrosses. My visit coincided with the Albatross nesting season when the chicks are dependent solely on the adults for food. Adult Albatrosses fly far from these islands in search of food and in the process of fishing they mistake floating plastic for fish to feed their chicks. I saw firsthand the unfortunate result: carcasses of Albatross chicks which upon examination had fragments of plastic, including toys, cigarette lighters, toothbrushes and bottle caps, in their stomachs. Many Laysan Albatrosses die each year as a result of ingesting plastic, and research shows that increasing accumulation of debris also entangles seals and turtles on the islands.
Debris floating in the oceans and coastal waters enters from many sources: litter and illegal dumping on land, fishing gear lost at sea, and cargo lost overboard. Trash that is disposed of improperly along coastal areas is likely to wash out into the ocean. A significant portion of the waste consists of non-biodegradable plastic. The plastic may float in the ocean for years, entangle marine animals or be eaten by them, degrade habitats such as coral reefs, or end up on the shores in distant places -- like Midway Atoll.
In June 2006 President Bush established the world's largest fully-protected marine conservation area, the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. The monument designation ensures the protection of these islands, the coral reefs, the unique native species and cultural and historic resources. The monument is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the State of Hawaii. This partnership is working to restore the wildlife and habitat, remove marine debris from the coral reefs and islands, and promote greater public awareness of this unique part of the world.
People everywhere have a responsibility to be good stewards of our environment. The trash we throw away can have harmful consequences on wildlife and the environment far from home. President Bush joins me in encouraging all Americans to reduce the amount of plastic we use in our daily lives; re-use the plastic we already have; and buy items made of recycled materials and those that can be recycled. Our efforts will help ensure a cleaner and healthier environment for future generations.
Laura Bush
The White House
Washington
If Hillary Clinton had written a letter like this eight years ago, saying that she and Bill were encouraging Americans to use less plastic, do you think there would have been an outcry? I don't expect the same reaction from Bush's comments.
Anyway, this isn't the first time Laura Bush has commented on plastic marine debris. I blogged about this back in March, and noted at the time that this was proof that marine debris is not a fringe issue. Now, with a signed letter to the editor of the most prestigous business newspaper in the United States, she is once again stressing the importance of this message.
New York City’s public school system goes through 850,000 Styrofoam cafeteria trays a day, 4 million in a week and more than 153 million in a school year. As this blog and an accompanying video reported in June, Parents Against Styrofoam in Schools, a grass-roots group arising out of Public School 154 in Windsor Terrace, Brooklyn, has called for limiting or ceasing the use of polystyrene, a petroleum-based material that can take centuries to decompose.
Now, Councilman Bill de Blasio, Democrat of Brooklyn, wants to go even further. He is introducing a bill in the City Council today to would prohibit the use of polystyrene by City agencies and food establishments. Mr. de Blasio, like the Brooklyn parents, want the school system to switch to either reusable plastic trays or trays that are biodegradable.
“It is mind-boggling that our city, which is becoming a leader on environmental issues, is still using Styrofoam when we know it is extremely harmful to our environment and creating massive amounts of waste,” Mr. de Blasio said.
The bill also would ban polystyrene containers used in restaurants and delis.
The Times blog has no comment from the Polystyrene Packaging Council or the National Polystyrene Recycling Co. -- wait, that's right, they're not around anymore. Anyone have a copy of those old business plans?
When you think of plastics, do you think of an industry in the "last dying throes...on its way out"? Because that's what Fairfax, Calif., Councilman Lew Tremaine told the Marin Independent Journal, in a story on the newspaper's Web site.
The angle? Fairfax leaders intend to fight a lawsuit that would challenge the town's ban on plastic grocery bags.
Tremaine appears to be an extremely quotable guy. Here are a few more of his comments from the story:
"For us to cave into a whining plastics industry is not what we should do," Tremaine said. "We should stand up to these guys. These are the last dying throes of an industry on its way out."
"Common sense tells you that this [banning plastic bags] is good for the environment. This [lawsuit] is a ploy, and I'm not in any mood to buy into it."
"It's [recycling plastics bags] a nice thought, except that crap can't be recycled," Tremaine said. "It's the same argument that was made against the polystyrene ban all over again. The industry claimed that product was recyclable, but it wasn't. They warehoused it because they couldn't do anything with it. And it's the same with plastic bags. By the time you get it down to that thin film, the plastic is used up. It's done. There's no market for it."
Something tells me he's not in a mood for compromise. Do you think he has aspirations for a higher public office? Just don't try to confuse him with any facts.
Here's a first: an alderman in Chicago has proposed putting a 25 cent-per-bottle tax on bottled water. He wants to discourage people from drinking bottled water, and at the same time help cut a budget shortfall, according to a report from Chicago's CBS affiliate.
“People enjoy jogging or driving with a bottle of water. There’s a cost associated with this behavior. You have to pay for it,” said Alderman George Cardenas, who the report calls "one of Mayor Richard M. Daley’s staunchest City Council supporters."
Cardenas noted that there’s a nearly $40 million shortfall in the city’s water and sewer funds, in part because of a decline in water usage.
“How is this possible when we have a water system that’s won honors? It’s because bottled water has become a $15 billion industry that’s growing at a rate of 20 to 30 percent a year,” he said.
Cardenas also said a bottled water tax would help the environment by dissuading people from buying the plastic bottles that end up in landfills.
The story goes on to quote a few local residents, who call the proposal "crazy" and "ridiculous," and suggest taxes on cigarettes or soda pop instead.
Some U.S. cities have made headlines in recent weeks for cutting off purchases of bottled water, but these have been fairly minor stories -- after all, how much water can one city council guzzle? But taxing bottled water is a new development.
Do you think this proposal will fly? I don't think most citizens like the idea of a bottled water tax. But if some city, somewhere, succeeds in taxing something new, I'm sure others will try.
Online newsmagazine Salon.com has a feature today about plastic bags, and it's not pretty. It starts with the headline "Plastic bags are killing us," and goes on to call them "an environmental scourge like no other, sapping the life out of our oceans and thwarting our attempts to recycle it."
And that's just the introductory paragraph.
The author, Katharine Mieszkowski, covers the issues very thoroughly. Bag bans have been a front-burner issue for the plastics industry for a couple of years, although the industry is just beginning to react to the challenge.
There's nothing in the Salon story that's going to be new to Plastics News readers -- many of Mieszkowski's sources are the same people we've been quoting about bag bans and marine debris. But it's still interesting to see the story though a different perspective, especially how she deals with some of the industry arguments about plastic bags being recyclable, and how they save energy compared to alternatives.
The story covers all sides of the debate, even though the headline is a great example of hyperbole.
Here's another prominent point that is worth debating. The story quotes Carol Misseldine, sustainability coordinator for the city of Oakland, saying that recycling plastic bags into composite decking is not an example of true recycling. "We're not recycling plastic bags into plastic bags," she says. "They're being downcycled, meaning that they're being put into another product that itself can never be recycled."
First, I don't think there's anything wrong with recycling a disposable product into a durable application. Second, I don't think you can say that composite decking "can never be recycled." And, finally, it's an exaggeration to say that we're "not recycling plastic bags into plastic bags," because some people are doing just that.
The New York Times today editorialized on the topic of plastics recycling. The bottom line: the newspaper supports expanded bottle deposit laws.
The column starts with the hot-button issue of bottled water, arguing that "it is time to start thinking twice about drinking commercially bottled water." It cites the energy needed to manufacture and transport plastic bottles as an important reason. Plastic water bottles contribute to global warming and create a "huge recycling problem," the paper reports.
Of the mountain of individual plastic water bottles created by Americans each year — including enough to hold more than seven billion gallons of water — less than one-fourth are sent to the recycling industry for a second round.
That makes absolutely no sense for the environment or for the economy.
The newspaper laments that only three states — California, Hawaii and Maine — put deposits on water bottles. "Passing new bottle laws or expanding old laws to include plastic bottles should be an easy call for most Legislatures. But the grocery and drink industry have been able to use their clout, and campaign funds, to keep that from happening. That needs to change."
I'm happy to see the editorial writer places the blame where it belongs. Many people in the plastics industry quietly support bottle deposits. But opposition from their customers -- grocers and soft drink companies -- has made it nearly impossible for state legislatures to pass new bottle bills.
Plastics News has editorially supported expanding deposit programs to more kinds of plastic bottles since 1997 -- and we've supported a national bottle bill even longer. It's a stance that hasn't been unanimously supported by all of our readers, but I think time has shown that it is the right position. Perhaps now that the NY Times has joined our bandwagon the march will pick up speed.
The bottled-water industry is battling back from a variety of attacks in the past few weeks with a new advertising campaign. Today the International Bottled Water Association took out full-page advertisements in The New York Times and The San Francisco Chronicle titled "It's Healthy to Think About Water."
Here's an excerpt:
Diabetes. Obesity. Heart disease. America’s declining health is in the headlines every day. At a time when one of the greatest challenges facing this country is the health of its people, it’s time to think about water. Calorie-free, refreshing water. Whether it comes from a faucet or a bottle, drinking water is an easy step people can take to lead a healthier lifestyle.
When we drink any beverage, it’s likely to come out of a bottle or a can. In fact, 70% of all beverages consumed are from a container. That’s a result of our 24/7, on-the-go society. So, as far as we’re concerned, the drink in everyone’s purse, backpack and lunch box should be water.
Bottled water is always there when you need it. During emergencies, such as earthquakes, floods, fires, tornados or hurricanes, the bottled water industry has provided millions of bottles of water to people and communities in need.
As more people choose to drink water, we must continue to protect and preserve the environment. The bottles our member companies produce are 100% recyclable. We use lightweight plastic bottles and the bigger containers found on bottled water coolers in many homes and offices represent the largest reusable bottle business in America.
Why advertising? IBWA President and CEO Joseph K. Doss said: "The bottled water industry has a right and responsibility to help ensure that consumers are not swayed from making bottled water--a healthy, safe, and convenient product -- their beverage of choice."
The key, though, is that bottled water has been under attack. As Newsweek recently reported:
It’s been a tough summer for the bottled-water industry. In June, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, led by San Francisco’s Gavin Newsom, passed a resolution calling for a study of the negative environmental impact of bottled water and praising the high quality of municipal tap water. In July, under pressure from environmental activists, Pepsico announced it would begin adding “source labels” to bottles of Aquafina, making it clearer to consumers that the stuff inside is merely tap water that’s been subjected to extra purification. And in the July issue of Fast Company magazine, award-winning writer Charles Fishman penned a highly critical story about Americans’ $16 billion-a-year bottled-water habit, which he calls an “indulgence” in a world in which 1 billion people lack access to dependable water sources. “When a whole industry grows up around supplying us with something we don't need—when a whole industry is built on the packaging and the presentation—it's worth asking how that happened, and what the impact is,” Fishman writes.
I understand critics' points about wastefulness of buying bottled water in the United States, where tap water is widely available and safe to drink. But, as a parent, I'd rather have my kids drinking bottled water than soda when they're on the go, so we usually have a case of the stuff in the house.
I don't think the bottled water industry is at risk of disappearing. Mayors and city councils can make speeches condemning it. But if they try to ban or tax it, I think they'd have a tea party on their hands.
Are you tired of the "I am not a plastic bag" story? You know, the designer bag that has drawn crowds everywhere it's introduced, and has sometimes sold for a premium on eBay?
Here's some info from the eBay post about the "I am a plastic bag...":
Seeking authentic in a knock-off world? Facts not fashion? Then don’t miss out on this 100% recyclable and reusable plastic bag. That’s right! Looking for a practical solution to a greener globe? This is the real deal…
Plastic bags are a practical alternative at the checkout stand, but what people don’t know is that most plastic bags are 100% recyclable. The Progressive Bag Alliance is making this limited edition plastic bag available to help spread the word.
Here are a few things you should know:
Myth: Plastic bags are single use
Fact: Plastic bags are 100% recyclable and reusable. Recycled plastic bags are already being made into new consumer products including new plastic bags and outdoor decking products.
Many grocery stores will take back your plastic bags for recycling – check with your local grocer.
Myth: Paper grocery bags are a better environmental choice than plastic bags.
Fact: Plastic bags use 40% less energy to produce and generate 70% less emissions & 80% less solid waste than paper. (U.S. EPA website, www.epa.gov/region1/communities/shopbags.html)
Myth: Plastic grocery bags take 1,000 years to decompose in landfills.
Fact: Today’s landfills are designed to prevent decomposition of anything. Chances are your orange peel, milk carton and even last year’s newspaper won’t breakdown.
Research by William Rathje, who runs the Garbage Project, has shown that when excavated from a landfill, newspapers from the 1960s can be intact and readable.
Myth: Compostable bags can degrade in backyard composts.
Fact: In order to breakdown, compostable bags must be sent to an industrial composting facility. Burying them in your backyard, leaving them out in the open or sending them to the neighborhood municipal composting center won’t work. The limited number of these facilities functioning in the U.S. significantly reduces the viability of compostable bags as an alternative.
And finally, my favorte part: "(Please note, this is a real auction and the winning bidder will receive the item indicated.)"
According to the eBay post, there was one bidder for the "I am a plastic bag," and the winning bid was 1 cent (plus 41 cents for shipping.)
Tucked away in Coca-Cola Co.'s annual environmental report (released yesterday) is an interesting snippet of news on the company's PET recycling efforts:
The Coca-Cola system also continued to invest in closed loop recycling plants. In 2006, Coca-Cola Beverages Austria finalized a €15 million investment partnership to build the country’s first bottle-to-bottle recycling plant. The plant, which will begin operations in 2007, will have capacity to provide 6,000 tons of recycled PET plastic material for use in new bottles.
This will be an interesting development to watch. Coke is under a lot of pressure right now, especially on the bottled water side of the business, to do something to improve its environmental reputation. If this project in Austria is a commercial success, I wouldn't be surprised if they tried similar projects around the world.
National Public Radio had a pretty good report this morning on plastic bottle recycling. The story doesn't cover much new ground, but it's worth a listen because it's balanced, and because it's an indication that there's pressure building to put deposits on more plastic bottles -- not just PET soda containers.
What do I mean by balanced? Well, the report quotes a small grocer who is opposed to bottle deposits, which I think is pretty rare in a typical recycling story.
"It's somewhat dirty, it's inconvenient and it actually costs us money," says Ken Capano, who owns two ShopRite stores in Connecticut.
Capano says the deposit law in his state places too much of the burden of recycling on grocers, who have to provide space and machines to take the bottles back. It costs each of his stores about $20,000 a year, he says.
Also consider this somewhat radical idea proposed by a water company executive:
Kim Jeffrey, president and CEO of Nestle Waters North America, says he's not against container deposits, but he says beverages should not be the only containers targeted.
"Everybody that sells a plastic container that's recyclable should have some deposit on it if we're going to do this thing the right way," Jeffrey says.
And he means everybody.
"If it's P&G with a detergent container; if it's ConAgra with a peanut butter container; or if it's me with a bottled water container; or if it's a dairy with a one-gallon milk container — this should be a level playing field on this," Jeffrey says.
Bottle deposit legislation was introduced in several states this year, but it didn't seem to catch fire. That's too bad -- I think deposits are the most effective way to boost the plastics industry's lackluster recycling rate. And remember, there's real demand for recycled PET containers. But politicians seem more interested in plastic bag bans right now, and deposits are stuck on the public policy back burner.
Here's an interesting Associated Press story about how many plastic milk crates get stolen each year -- both for college kids' dorm furniture and to be recycled. Some of the numbers related to the plastics recycling angle look spurious, so I suggest taking them with a grain of salt.
The story says U.S. dairies lose about $80 million annually to milk crate theft, and that one company in California has hired a private detective to track down lost crates. The story's sources blame the problem on recyclers in China.
"We saw them disappearing into this black hole," said Rachel Kaldor, executive director of the Dairy Institute, a trade group in Sacramento. "We just don't know who's stealing these crates off the loading docks."
Here's the first part that doesn't make sense. The story says consumers pay as much as $10 for crates at places like the Container Store. Yet the dairies think most of the crates end up at recyclers who pay only pennies per pound.
"If it were just college kids taking them, the dormitories would be overflowing with milk cases," said Stephen Schaffer, general manager of Alta Dena Dairy near Los Angeles.
That doesn't seem right. If you could sell a crate for $10, why would you sell it for a buck or two to a recycler?
The California dairy industry is so convinced that recyclers are the problem that it lobbied the state legislature to pass a law that allows dairies to sue recyclers accused of accepting stolen crates. Yet, so far, no cases have been filed.
After the law went into effect last January, the Dairy Institute hired private investigator Chuck Wall to educate recyclers about documenting purchases and to conduct sting operations against suspected offenders.
Wall said he helped recover 24,000 pounds of ground-up plastic from crates belonging to dairies, bakeries and beverage companies at one recycler -- but the story says that's "at least a quarter-million dollars of plastics." That's either a typo or a gross exaggeration. I think 24,000 pounds of HDPE regrind is worth, at most $18,000 -- probably much, much less.
Anyway, if you know someone who has stolen milk crate furniture in their apartment, you can turn them in to the Alta Dena Dairy's "milk crate abuse" hotline, at (800) 457-6688. Operators are standing by...
Everywhere they're introduced, the "I'm not a plastic bag" reusable shopping bags are causing a stir. It's kind of like Beanie Babies and Harry Potter ... the frenzy feeds upon itself. And the opportunity to make money by selling them for a big profit on eBay certainly helps.
The newest stories are from New York, where Whole Foods retailers offered a limited supply of the bags today. They actually had crowds waiting to buy them, and sold out of the $15 designer totes in minutes.
This CNN story says the bags are selling for $200 to $250 each on the Web.
Certainly no Plastics News readers were among those standing in line for an "I'm not a plastic bag," were there?
Cereplast Inc. had pretty big plans to feature its bio-based renewable plastics at the Live Earth Rio de Janeiro concert on July 7. But things didn't work out.
The Hawthorne, Calif.-based company sent out a news alert late today explaining the problem:
As a follow up to the press release sent to you on Tuesday, July 3rd, the Cereplast products -- 27,000 cups, 10,000 forks and 10,000 spoons -- made from biodegradable and compostable bio-based plastic resin were shipped to the Live Earth Concert in Rio de Janeiro, but unfortunately were not able to be used. Cereplast fulfilled the Live Earth order but shipping logistics prevented the products from arriving at the concert venue on-time.
Oops. I actually was going to blog on the company's participation in the event before I found out that things didn't work out, so I don't feel too bad about mentioning the problem. Cereplast puts out a lot of news releases -- it is one of the few companies I've seen that puts out a news release when a trade newspaper or magazine mentions them in a story.
But I have to take my hat off to them for this one.
On the processing side, according to Cereplast's earlier release, Glens Falls, N.Y.-based GenPak LLC supplied the cups for the concert.
Starting July 1, most large grocery stores in the state of California will be legally required to recycle plastic shopping bags. In Europe, even stricter anti-plastic measures are gaining traction. Retailers in Modbury, England, for example, recently committed to an outright plastic-bag ban. News reports have cited a statistic that the ubiquitous receptacles take 500 years to break down in landfills. How do we know?
A very good question, since plastics have only been around 100 years, and polyethylene has been produced commercially for less than 70 years. And the experts acknowledge that no one has first-hand data on how long it takes plastic bags to degrade:
Plastic bags have only been around for about 50 years, so there's no firsthand evidence of their decomposition rate. To make long-term estimates of this sort, scientists often use respirometry tests. The experimenters place a solid waste sample—like a newspaper, banana peel, or plastic bag—in a vessel containing microbe-rich compost, then aerate the mixture. Over the course of several days, microorganisms assimilate the sample bit by bit and produce carbon dioxide; the resultant CO2 level serves as an indicator of degradation.
Respirometry tests work perfectly for newspapers and banana peels. (Newspapers take two to five months to biodegrade in a compost heap; banana peels take several days.) But when scientists test generic plastic bags, nothing happens—there's no CO2 production and no decomposition. Why? The most common type of plastic shopping bag—the kind you get at supermarkets—is made of polyethylene, a man-made polymer that microorganisms don't recognize as food.
So, where does the 500-year statistic come from? Although standard polyethylene bags don't biodegrade, they do photodegrade. When exposed to ultraviolet radiation from sunlight, polyethylene's polymer chains become brittle and start to crack. This suggests that plastic bags will eventually fragment into microscopic granules. As of yet, however, scientists aren't sure how many centuries it takes for the sun to work its magic. That's why certain news sources cite a 500-year estimate while others prefer a more conservative 1,000-year lifespan. According to some plastics experts, all these figures are just another way of saying "a really, really long time."
Interesting stuff. I think this is good ammunition for people who think used plastic bags shouldn't just be thrown away -- there's too much potential value in a product that can last that long. And, obviously I hope, there's a powerful anti-litter message there, too.
Plastic bag recycling kicks off statewide in California this weekend, and the California Grocers Association and the Progressive Bag Alliance are ready with an at-store collection tool kit.
Under state law AB 2449, groceries and other retailers are implementing recycling programs for plastic bags, and also providing reusable bags for sale to customers, starting July 1, according to a news release from the grocers' trade group.
"This program is the result of legislation worked on by a coalition of environmental groups, local governments, and the supermarket and chain drug industries, said Pamela Williams, Senior Vice President for the California Retailers Association. "It's an example of what can be achieved when we work together."
With San Francisco banning many plastic bags, and other cities poised to join that trend, this looks a little like closing the barn door after the horses run away. But there really is a healthy recycling market for plastic grocery bags, and I think this program has a chance to succeed. Do you think state and local politicians will give it a chance?
Plastic bag ban stories have been so commonplace in the media for the past few weeks that I've given up linking to most of them. The trend really seems to be building all over the world.
I'll make an exception to the "no link" rule with this feature from Wednesday's Christian Science Monitor. It's a story about how British filmmaker Rebecca Hosking persuaded her hometown of Modbury, England, to ban plastic bags, and how the "revolt" is spreading across Britain.
It was watching sea creatures choke on plastic bags in the Pacific Ocean that finally persuaded Rebecca Hosking that enough was enough.
The British filmmaker had already recoiled in disgust at deserted Hawaiian beaches piled up with four feet of rubbish, the jetsam of Western consumerism washed up by an ocean teeming with plastic. Now, filming off the coast, she looked on aghast as sea turtles eagerly mistook bobbing translucent shapes in the water for jellyfish.
"Sea turtles can't read Wal-mart or Tesco signs on plastic bags," fumes Ms. Hosking, who returned to Britain in March. "They will home in on it and feed on it. Dolphins mistake them for seaweed and quite often they'll eat them and it causes huge damage."
Within a few weeks of coming back, Hosking persuaded her hometown to ban plastic bags outright and found herself in the vanguard of a sudden British revulsion for that most disposable convenience of the throwaway society.
Stores, grass-roots groups, and citizens are joining forces to reduce national consumption of plastic bags, and Hosking is fielding hundreds of requests a day for guidance.
According to the story, Hosking screened her film in Modbury, and invited the town's shopkeepers. After they watched the film, they unanimously decided to support a voluntary ban on plastic bags.
Retailers across Britain followed suit, and the Sainsbury chain has gotten quite a bit of press for its reusable cotton "I am not a plastic bag" bags, which it sold for $10.
So far, Britain's government has not jumped on the "bag ban" bandwagon, although it officially encourages retailers to set up voluntary recycling projects.
Celebrity blog radaronline commented: "With the green movement taking off as the greatest trend since the 'Rachel' haircut, former 'Friends' star Jennifer Aniston is finding herself on the wrong side of the hour's most polarizing topic: drinking bottled water. Aniston recently jumped on board as spokeswoman for Smartwater, booking the back page ad in July's W and thereby siding against a growing number of increasingly important environmentalists.
"Victoria Kaplan of Food and Water Watch is forwarding a movement called "quitting the bottle," citing such early adopters as celebrity chef Alice Waters and others who, because of the impact plastic containers have on the environment, are starting to serve from the tap instead of the bottle in their restaurants. "Consumers are waking up to the myth of bottled water, despite celebrity endorsement," says Kaplan. With 86 percent of bottles being tossed rather than recycled, Aniston is making a political statement, whether she knows it or not, Kaplan says."
(Radar later softened its criticism, pointing out that Aniston saves water by taking 3-minute showers. Important to know!)
It's all silly, of course. But the fact that anti-plastics rhetoric is reported in the celebrity gossip headlines has an impact on consumer attitudes.
The town of Fairfax, Calif., in Marin County may be the next community to ban plastic bags, and it looks like Baltimore and Annapolis, Md., may follow suit. Fairfax's town council endorsed a ban, based on San Francisco's law, on June 6, and its set for a vote on July 11. A story on the Marin Independent Journal's Web site explains that the ban there could take effect Feb. 10, and would fine store owners $100 for a first offense, $200 for a second and $500 for each time after that.
Fairfax's ban applies to carryout bags provided by any eating establishment, retail store or food vendor. Town Manager Linda Kelly estimated that 85 businesses would have to comply.
Council members considered adding bags used by dry cleaners and in produce sections at grocery stores, but they put that off until business owners have reliable alternatives in place.
Mayor Larry Bragman told the paper that he presented the plan to the local Chamber of Commerce, and members were supportive. "By and large, the feedback I've gotten is positive," Bragman said.
Meantime, the Associated Press is reporting that both Baltimore and Annapolis are considering similar ordinances. Annapolis would require stores to issue "recyclable paper bags," or customers would have to provide reusable bags. Baltimore would ban "non-biodegradable bags only in grocery stores and pharmacies, while allowing them for other retailers. Plastic bags made of cornstarch would be permitted."
The Maryland efforts are being touted as a way to protect the Chesapeake Bay. "Save the Bay" is a common slogan in that part of the country, and I imagine that this issue will get a lot of support because of that popular sentiment -- just like they're gaining traction in California because of concern about marine debris.
Ocean Conservancy today released its annual report with data from its 2006 International Coastal Cleanup. Plastics waste is featured prominently, but this really is an indictment of littering and other bad consumer behavior. People throw away an amazing amount of junk, and too many seem to believe that once it leaves their house or car or hand, it magically disappears.
Or they don't care.
The 2006 Cleanup was the 21st annual Cleanup conducted by Ocean Conservancy and was made possible by the 358,617 dedicated volunteers around the world in 68 countries. The volunteers not only removed 7,000,000 pounds of debris from the ocean, rivers, lakes and waterways, but they also recorded what they found. An analysis of that data is completed by Ocean Conservancy to provide the most detailed picture of marine debris currently available. It also provides insight to where the trash comes from and how it ends up in the ocean and waterways.
“At a time when so many of us feel compelled to address environmental challenges that are large and complex, the International Coastal Cleanup provides a direct, tangible way to make a difference for one of the largest problems we face trash in our ocean and waterways,” said Vikki Spruill, President and CEO of Ocean Conservancy. “The health of our ocean is a metaphor for the health of our planet and ultimately of human beings who are sustained by the environment. It is time for each one of us to help improve the health of our planet, and the International Coastal Cleanup provides the perfect venue.”
In the 2006 Cleanup, 1,074 animals were found entangled in marine debris by our volunteers including a one-year old seal that was entangled in fishing gear along Hobe Sound, Florida. Of all the animals found entangled this year the seal was the only survivor. Dangerous debris items including discarded fishing gear, ropes, grocery and trash bags as well as small pieces of plastic are responsible for thousands of animal deaths due to entanglement or ingestion.
The next cleanup is scheduled for Sept. 15.
Finally, here's a list of the top 10 debris items found in the 2006 cleanup:
I've said before that just about all the people I meet in the plastics industry consider themselves environmentalists. And while that seems perfectly reasonable to everyone in the industry, it probably doesn't make sense to many outsiders who think of plastics as being environmentally harmful.
This column from AlterNet takes the issue one step further and asks, if big business is part of the "environmental movement," what does that mean for mainstream environmentalists?
Look at the evidence: General Electric Co.'s CEO wins a "Courage to Lead" award from the World Resources Institute; Home Depot introduces an Eco Options label for green products; General Motors and ConocoPhillips join a list of supporters for a mandatory ceiling on greenhouse gas emissions.
Is this good news for the environment? The columnist, Phil Mattera, research director of Good Jobs First, implies that it is not.
Today the term "greenwash" is rarely uttered, and differences in positions between corporate giants and mainstream environmental groups are increasingly difficult to discern. Everywhere one looks, enviros and executives have locked arms and are marching together to save the planet. Is this a cause for celebration or dismay?
Answering this question begins with the recognition that companies do not all enter the environmental fold in the same way. Here are some of their different paths:
Defeat. Some companies did not embrace green principles on their own--they were forced to do so after being successfully targeted by aggressive environmental campaigns. Home Depot abandoned the sale of lumber harvested in old-growth forests several years ago after being pummeled by groups such as Rainforest Action Network. Responding to similar campaign pressure, Boise Cascade also agreed to stop sourcing from endangered forests and J.P. Morgan Chase agreed to take environmental impacts into account in its international lending activities. Dell started taking computer recycling seriously only after it was pressed to do so by groups such as the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition.
Diversion. It is apparent that Wal-Mart is using its newfound green consciousness as a means of diverting public attention away from its dismal record in other areas, especially the treatment of workers. In doing so, it hopes to peel environmentalists away from the broad anti-Wal-Mart movement. BP's emphasis on the environment was no doubt made more urgent by the need to repair an image damaged by allegations that a 2005 refinery fire in Texas that killed 15 people was the fault of management. To varying degrees, many other companies that have jumped on the green bandwagon have sins they want to public to forget.
Opportunism. There is so much hype these days about protecting the environment that many companies are going green simply to earn more green. There are some market moves, such as Toyota's push on hybrids, that also appear to have some environmental legitimacy. Yet there are also instances of sheer opportunism, such as the effort by Nuclear Energy Institute to depict nukes as an environmentally desirable alternative to fossil fuels. Not to mention surreal cases such as the decision by Britain's BAE Systems to develop environmentally friendly munitions, including low-toxin rockets and lead-free bullets.
In other words, the suggestion that the new business environmentalism flows simply from a heightened concern for the planet is far from the truth. Corporations always act in their own self-interest and one way or another are always seeking to maximize profits. It used to be that they had to hide that fact. Today they flaunt it, because there is a widespread notion that eco-friendly policies are totally consistent with cutting costs and fattening the bottom line.
I tend to give the corporations more credit. There are many cases where executives act in the interest of the larger community. Isn't it possible that environmentalism is so ingrained in our culture now that even -- shudder -- Wall Street executives consider themselves "green"?
Tofino, British Columbia, a small tourist town known for whale watching and other activities, has passed a ban on plastic bags, although it is asking residents and businesses to comply voluntarily.
The district council voted 6-1 to ban "petrochemical-based, single-use plastic bags," according to this report from westcoaster.ca, an independent online newspaper in Tofino.
“We’re hoping people will effectively switch to compostable bags,” said [councillor Derek] Shaw, who proposed the idea. “At this point, the ban is effectively sending a message to the community.”
Council has set no timeline for implementation.
The number of bags saved in Tofino would be small, but some tourists may carry away the village's message back to their hometowns after a visit. Unless bag makers can drum up some grass roots support for their product, it's going to be difficult to fight bans in every green-minded city and town in the world.
The news that Segolene Royal will participate in a runoff election for president of France reminds me of her visit to the K show in Dusseldorf, Germany, in 1992.
Royal, then France's Environment minister, participated in a debate sponsored by the Association of Plastics Manufacturers in Europe. About 300 people attended, including leaders of most of the plastics trade associations in the Western world.
I got a big kick out of covering event. I was in my second year at Plastics News, and on my first trip to Europe. Royal spoke in French, and I took notes while I listened to the translation on a big set of headphones. It was like covering a United Nations session.
After the event, I got copies of photos of Royal supplied by the event organizers. Most were very serious shots of her speaking, but there was one goofy photo where she was smiling broadly and making an exaggerated gesture toward her headphones. I included that photo in the batch that we shipped back to Akron -- this was pre-email, of course -- thinking that the copy desk back home would get a kick out of it. Later, I was surprised to see that was the photo they chose to use in print!
I looked back at our story from our Nov. 9, 1992 issue today, and it's interesting to see how environmental issues that were important to the industry then still are making headlines. It's also interesting to note that Royal was not the event's "headliner." The real big name was Klaus Topfer, then the German minister for the environment and author of his country's package recycling legislation.
I quoted Royal just once in our story, on a then-new French law that called for dramatic increases in recycling: "Even if we have to be brutal here, there was a crisis, and we had to deal with the crisis," Royal said.
I'm not sure I agree that plastics packaging waste was creating a "crisis" in Europe in the early 1990s. But legislators were behaving that way, and industry responded with a variety of recycling initiatives. Likewise, some cities and states are dealing with plastics waste issues today as if they have a crisis. Unlike then, so far, I have not seen much of a response from the plastics industry.
A colleague found this an easy, do-it-yourself project for storing used plastic bags. I've already got a used-bag holder, but this one seems like a fun alternative. You just need a 2-quart plastic bottle, a box cutter and/or scissors, a Sharpie, some durable tape, and plenty of excess plastic bags.
As the Web page notes, "Chances are you already have everything you need to make one for free. Or you can buy one at The Container Store for $4.99 plus $6.50 [shipping & handling]. Your choice."
Plastic bags are probably the most reused item in my household. I use them for lunches, the kids carry stuff to school in them, and ... well, we have two dogs. You get the picture.
You know an issue is the focus of mainstream American thought when USA Today makes it the focus of its lead editorial. That's the case today with a thoughtful column on the San Franciso plastic bag ban.
McPaper comes out against the ban, with a provocative headline: "Our view on the environment: Plastic-bag ban full of holes." But the column isn't exactly a pro-plastics essay. The writers just feel that the ban is misdirected.
The real culprit is the slob who litters or refuses to recycle either one — or communities that don't provide the means for him to do so. Our throwaway society is to blame as well.
The best answer to the paper or plastic question is neither. Each individual can do more to help the environment by reusing whatever bags groceries distribute or buying a canvas sack to carry goods.
Public education campaigns about littering and recycling can help more than ineffective bans on products that are used every day by billions of people worldwide. It needn't take 1,000 years to alter anti-social behavior.
Keeping with the newspaper's tradition, the editorial page also features a counterpoint. In this case, the author is Ross Mirkarimi, a San Francisco supervisor who authored the ban. Its headline: "100 billion reasons for ban. We’re protecting the environment, and we’re saving oil, too."
(That definitely would depend on whether consumers start using reusable bags, because if they don't the energy will continue to be used, only in the manufacture and transport of paper or degradable plastic bags. And the claim ignores the fact that U.S. polyethylene producers use natural gas, not oil, to make resin. But let's not cloud this argument with too many facts...)
"Despite San Francisco's excellent residential recycling program, the recycling rate for plastic bags is only 1 percent," he writes. "Each year, we spend $8 million sweeping bags from our streets, untangling them from recycling machinery, scooping them from storm drains so sewers don't back up, and, ultimately, dumping them into landfills. Local governments are subsidizing the production of waste because producers know that whatever they manufacture and distribute, taxpayers will shoulder the bill. This is unacceptable."
How many more U.S. cities will adopt plastic bag bans this year? In the spirit of the NCAA tournament (I still can't believe I picked Texas), I'd put the over-under at 10.
San Francisco's decision to ban plastic grocery bags is generating headlines in news media around the globe. But the story won't end there. In the next few days, newspapers and TV news crews around the country will be looking at whether their cities should do the same thing.
One place where journalists go for story ideas is Al's Morning Meeting, a Web site updated daily with suggestions from Al Tompkins of the Poynter Institute, a training ground for journalists in St. Petersburg, Fla.
Why is that relevant to the plastics industry? Because Al's column today leads with the plastic bag ban story. It's loaded with data, potential story angles and links for more information. You can be sure that a fair number of media outlets around the country will pick up on his story ideas.
So if you're in the bag making or plastics recycling business, don't be surprised if you get a call in the next couple of days from a local reporter looking for a bag ban-related story.
Better yet, why not pick up the phone and make the first move? Make sure the local media knows what's at stake for your company, and your local employees, if a ban comes. Or highlight what you're doing with recycled or degradable plastics, and your efforts to make your company "green" and "sustainable." Reporters are looking for local angles now, and this is an opportunity to make sure they include your point of view.
Remember "The Gates Project," the big outdoor art display in New York's Central Park by artists Christo and Jeanne-Claude? Back in the winter of 2005, the project got lots of headlines -- it covered 26 miles of walkways, with saffron-colored gates and draperies brightening the city's gray winter exterior. Many news stories erroneously said the gates were made of steel, but actually they were PVC, with components made of high-impact polystyrene, polypropylene and nylon.
The project may soon be in the news again, as Nazareth, Pa.-based Nicos Polymers & Grinding Inc. has been nominated to receive the Innovative Deconstruction Project award from the Building Materials Reuse Association for its role in recycling "The Gates." According to a news release from Nicos, "The nominators believe that design professionals, building owners and community members at-large stand to benefit and learn from demonstration projects such as `The Gates,' which was a socially responsible work of art."
The award will be announced May 14.
Although spring officially is here, it's still a treat to see a bit of color (at least here in still-dreary Akron, Ohio). So check out the slide show and video of "The Gates" on Nicos' Web site.
First lady Laura Bush touched on the plastic marine debris issue in remarks yesterday at the Hawaiian Monk Seal Captive Care Project on Midway Atoll.
In response to the question, "What can people back home, do you think, do? What can people at home do to help ensure that these animals have a safe habitat?" she replied:
Well, I hope people will study up about the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, about this very important part of our country and the new monument here that protects the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands.
But I also hope people will take from this that we need to really pay attention to how we recycle plastic, and to pay attention to everything that you consume at home that's plastic, and how you get rid of it, and just make sure it doesn't someday end up here on one of these islands, or on any other coast, or in the stomach of one of these marine animals.
Plastic marine debris is prominent in my thoughts right now, after hearing Stephanie Barger's comments at our Plastics NewsExecutive Forum in San Diego earlier this week. Barger, founder of the Costa Mesa, Calif.-based Earth Resource Foundation, urged plastics industry leaders in attendance to take this issue seriously, and I think many took her comments to heart.
Seeing Laura Bush echo Stephanie Barger is additional proof that this isn't a fringe issue -- despite what a substantial number of people participating in our current Web poll on the topic seem to believe.
Arkansas' legislature is taking a different approach to polystyrene foam litter problems. Instead of banning the material, like some communities in California, it's looking at recycling it.
This report from the Arkansas News Bureau indicates that a House committee passed a PS recycling bill 11-3 yesterday. Now it goes to the full house, so it's still several steps away from becoming law.
The story doesn't mention any plastics industry reaction to the bill, but it does note that some waste industry representives oppose the measure. Supporters include the state Department of Environmental Quality and the Sierra Club of Arkansas.
If food-service product suppliers in California had a chance to support a bill like this, instead of facing the bans they do now, I think they'd jump at the opportunity. It will be interesting to see how suppliers in Arkansas react.
Buffalo News business reporter Michelle Kearns wrote a feature today on plastics recycling, highlighting the experience of a local cider and water company that is selling plastic scrap that it previously had to pay to send to the landfill.
The company is making $36,000 to $76,000 annually by recycling its waste strapping, pallet wrap and other materials. But, perhaps just as important, the company owners feel like they're helping the environment while they also boost the company's bottom line.
Most people think of themselves as environmentalists these days -- and the market for recycled plastic is healthy enough that we're beginning to see some investment in new capacity.
"As we've all aged - my brother, my father and I - we've all become more environmentally friendly," said Garrett Mayer, vice president of Mayer Bros., the drink company. Later in the story he said there is something about recycling, whether or not it saves money, that just feels good. "I think people, in general, want to do the right thing," he said.
Kearns talked to me for this story, and I'm pleased to say that she did a good job explaining the current state of the scrap recycling sector (and she quoted me accurately, too, which is a plus).
Most plastics companies have programs in place for recycling their scrap, so this is a story that others could pitch to their own local news media.
Andrew Leonard's "How the world works" blog at Salon.com yesterday tackled the confusing world of PET recycling. The market has suffered through years of sluggish recycling rates despite healthy demand and fairly high prices for scrap material.
I'm not sure how many people outside the plastics industry will be able to make sense of the column -- it's second nature to me, but I've been writing about this issue for 16 years. But Leonard does a pretty good job of putting all the pieces of the story into perspective.
Most important, he seems to have reached the correct conclusion: curbside recycling isn't keeping up with the growing volume of PET bottles, which are being thrown away by the ton. Plastics News has urged the industry to support container deposit programs. Some PET blow molders know deposits are in their best interest, but their hands are tied -- they can't really lobby for deposits because their customers, the grocery chains and drink manufacturers, are opposed.
As editor of 