180-day trick
I have noticed that governments are being tricked by the “compostable plastic” industry into preferring their product in legislation and Standards. They do this by inserting a 180-day time limit for proof of biodegradation. This short timescale is required by the industrial composters, and suits “compostable” plastic, which is designed to biodegrade in an industrial composting facility. However, it has no relevance to the problem facing governments – namely plastic in the open environment. The ONLY way to deal with this is d2w plastic, which will biodegrade much more quickly than ordinary plastic, but not necessarily within 180 days.
Plastiphobia
I have been reading a really important article by a polymer scientist, Chris de Armitt, who says :
“We have been bombarded with stories about how bad plastics are. The problem is that these stories do not come from professional scientists. Instead, they come from other, less credible sources. How concerned should we be about plastics? The only way to be sure is to look at the evidence…
Materials
One reason people criticize plastics is because of the perception that we use too much in the way of materials and we need to cut back. It is true that we are a wasteful society and that we should reduce our use of materials, but how much does plastic contribute to our use of materials? The answer may surprise you.
Actually, plastics make up less than one percent of materials we use, either by weight or by volume. So, even if we eliminated plastics tomorrow, it would not make a dent in the problem. This highlights why we need to check the scientific evidence before leaping to conclusions, or taking action, based on rumors we hear online.
We often hear that plastics growth is out of control and that it must be stopped, but is it fair to criticize plastics in particular for their rapid growth? The data on materials growth rate shows that all materials are now expected to grow at about the same rate. Metal, wood, concrete, paper and plastics are all projected to grow at ~3% per year. All of them are increasing as the population grows. So, while it is fair to say that we should reduce our use of materials, but it is not justified to single out plastics.
Waste
Another reason for the attacks on plastics is the perception that plastics generate a lot of waste. Again, it is true that humanity creates a lot of waste. In fact, the more prosperous we are, the more waste we generate. We should try to reduce our waste but how much do plastics contribute to waste? As plastics are under 1% of materials we use, it will come as no surprise that plastics also represent under 1% of all waste we create. Again, that is what the scientific evidence shows us. If all plastic waste were eliminated tomorrow, we would still have 99% of the waste left to deal with. That makes me question why we hear about nothing but plastics and nothing at all about the other 99% of the problem. Ignoring 99% of a problem is a sure recipe for failure and yet, that is what we are doing right now.
Scientists have looked at how much material it takes to replace plastic. Have a look at this:
- Bags: plastic 6 grams – paper 60g
- Straws: plastic 1g – paper 2g – metal 11g
- Bottles: plastic 30g – aluminium 90g – glass 325g
On average it takes 3-4lb of other materials to replace 1lb of plastic. That means that eliminating all plastic tomorrow would:
- Remove just 1% of materials and waste
- Increase the overall amount of materials and waste by a significant amount
This is another example of why jumping to conclusions based on internet gossip increases harm to the environment.
Plastics make up ~15% of household waste but household waste is just 3% of all waste and the other 97% is industrial waste.
Environmental Impact
There have been 27 Life-cycle-assessment (LCA) studies on grocery bags. Every one concluded that plastic polyethylene bags cause less harm than paper, cotton or degradable plastic bags. That means that banning or taxing PE bags is certain to increase harm. Bag LCA – life cycle studies here. And LCA
There are also LCA studies on straws. Of course, taking no straw is the greenest choice. But if you have to take a straw, then LCA shows that the normal plastic straw causes least harm. Plus, it can be reused many times, which lowers its impact even further.
When it comes to soft-drink containers there are several LCA studies and they all agree that plastic containers made of HDPE or PET are the greenest recyclable choice. Steel, aluminium and glass are all far worse for the environment as they take far more energy, generate far more CO2, and also far more waste. A McKinsey report found that plastics caused least harm of the materials options in 13 out of 14 applications. So, plastic is the greenest option in over 90% of cases.
Comprehensive studies find that plastic production is responsible for just 2% of carbon dioxide creation and that they dramatically reduce carbon dioxide compared to alternative materials. In fact, the net effect of plastics is to reduce GHG because they make vehicles lighter, prevent food waste and insulate buildings.
Plastiphobia
Who gains by falsifying evidence about plastic? Look to see which groups make money from making us angry enough to donate to them and you will have your answer.
It would seem that we have been tricked into donating our money based on fiction. How can we be sure that is really the case? Simple – Dr. Patrick Moore, the former President of Greenpeace says that they abandoned science and evidence and are now just trying to get donations by peddling fiction.
Read his book “Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout” in which he describes how he left in disgust when they changed from being pro-environment to pro-fiction. He is not alone – other former environmental group members have also exposed the shady dealings of their former organizations.
This is why we cannot trust our so-called “environmental groups” and must instead rely on solid scientific peer-reviewed evidence.
The impression we get from our exposure to internet sources is that plastics are public enemy number one. It is easy to go along with the online narrative, even though most of us realize that online information is untrustworthy. Although we know that caution is warranted, who really has time to go check all the “facts” we’re given?
Fortunately, an independent scientist has now checked the facts. Chris de Armitt spent 1500 hours to read over 3000 scientific articles. The most comprehensive review of the science ever done reveals that most of what we believe now is simply fiction. Thousands of peer-reviewed scientific publications disprove what we and our politicians believe today. The science contradicts what teachers are telling our children in school.
It turns out that the demonization of plastics is unwarranted and distracts the public from the real issues. Not only that, but policies based on this misinformation are proven to increase harm, not decrease it.
California
Californians now throw away MORE plastic bags (by weight) than before their single-use plastic bag ban.
California’s single-use plastic bag ban had an unintended consequence: reusable replacements created a new problem. Without adequate recycling systems & consumer participation, these bags are piling up. Legislation in California is a classic case of “act first – think later” (if at all).
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