MORE EVIDENCE THAT THE EU VIOLATES ITS OWN LAWS
I have been reading a legal Opinion by the leading European law firm, Dentons Europe (Germany) GmbH & Co. KG., regarding the legal validity of the proposed Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation. They say “As an EU Regulation, the PPWR is secondary EU law and, therefore, it must comply with EU primary law and EU legal principles.”
“The EU legal principle most important for the assessment of compatibility with EU law is the principle of equal treatment. In this regard, the EU legislature has discretion, but only within certain limits. The EU legislature must factually exercise its discretion, which presupposes taking into consideration all the relevant factors and circumstances of the situation – including the preparation of impact assessments.”
“Consequently, if any provisions that violate the substantive or procedural legal standards are adopted, the companies affected by them can invoke this illegality before the EU courts.”
A Directive also constitutes Secondary Law, and Symphony Environmental has recently challenged Art.5 of the Single-use Plastics Directive in the General Court of the EU as violating the principle of equal treatment. Also, by reason of failure to act on the best scientific evidence available and failure to perform an impact assessment. The court did not rule that Art. 5 was unlawful, but it now seems that the whole Directive may be unlawful because it discriminates against single use plastics without regard to the many disadvantages of other packaging materials.
Plastic bags use 6 grams of material – paper uses 60g but is not banned
Plastic straws use 1g – paper uses 2g but is not banned
Plastic bottles use 30g – aluminium 90g – and glass 325g but are not banned
It takes more than four times as much energy to manufacture a paper bag than a plastic bag. Whole forests are cut down to make paper – forests that could be helping the environment by absorbing greenhouse gases – but paper is not banned
Manufacturing paper bags produces 70% more air-pollutants and 50% more water-pollutants than plastic bags – but paper is not banned.
Every year 3 billion trees are cut down globally for paper-based packaging – but paper is not banned.
Because paper is a lot heavier than plastic it costs a lot more to transport, and causes more pollution from transportation – but paper is not banned.
Ordinary plastic creates microplastics and is not compostable – but is not banned.
Compostable plastic creates microplastics and is not recyclable – but is not banned
Ordinary plastic and compostable plastic do not properly biodegrade in the open environment – but they are not banned
THE RECYCLING FRAUD
In this column last week I wrote that “despite their long-standing knowledge that recycling plastic is neither technically nor economically viable, petrochemical companies—independently and through their trade associations and front groups—have engaged in fraudulent marketing and public education campaigns designed to mislead the public about the viability of plastic recycling as a solution to plastic waste.”
This story has now been taken up by “The Guardian” a leading British newspaper ‘They lied’: plastics producers deceived public about recycling, report reveals The headline is ‘They lied’: plastics producers deceived public about recycling, report reveals.”
“Plastic, which is made from oil and gas, is notoriously difficult to recycle. Doing so requires meticulous sorting, since most of the thousands of chemically distinct varieties of plastic cannot be recycled together. That renders an already pricey process even more expensive. Another challenge: the material degrades each time it is reused, meaning it can generally only be reused once or twice.”
“Industry insiders over the past several decades have variously referred to plastic recycling as “uneconomical” and said it “cannot be considered a permanent solid waste solution” and it “cannot go on indefinitely.”
“oil and petrochemical companies, as well as their trade associations, may have broken laws designed to protect the public from misleading marketing and pollution.”
Back in 2022 I wrote in this column “For years the oil companies and plastic manufacturers have been warned that their business is under threat because plastic creates microplastics and is very persistent in the environment. The only way to respond to this threat is to use and support biodegradable masterbatch technology such as d2w, which can be put into their products so that they will no longer be persistent in the open environment. They have not listened, and continued to place their faith in recycling.”
“Even some of the recyclers have been persuaded against biodegradable technology, but they are scoring an own-goal, because anti-plastic legislation is reducing demand for their product, and also reducing supplies of the plastic products which they use as feedstock.”
It is time to stop using recycling as an argument against oxo-biodegradable plastic, which has now been proved by yet another report from an expert laboratory (AIMPLAS) to be recyclable without separation in a post-consumer waste stream. Recycling
Michael Stephen
Michael Stephen is a lawyer and was a member of the United Kingdom Parliament, where he served on the Environment Select Committee. When he left Parliament Symphony Environmental Technologies Plc. attracted his attention because of his interest in the environment. He is now Deputy Chairman of Symphony, which is listed on the AIM market of the London Stock Exchange, and is the founder and Chairman of the Biodegradable Plastics Association.
Earlier Postings in this Column
All articles from Michael Stephen
Interview with Michael Stephen
Questions and Answers on OXO-Biodegradability
Disclaimer
The opinions expressed here by Michael Stephen and other columnists are their own, not those of Bioplasticsnews.com