Plastiphobia
There is nothing wrong with polyethylene or polypropylene except that it can persist for a long time if it gets into the environment. It is made from a by-product of oil which used to be wasted, so until the world no longer needs petrol and oil for engines it makes sense to use this by-product instead of using land, water, and energy resources to grow crops to make plastic.
I have come to the conclusion that plastiphobia (an emotional fear of plastics) is driven by campaigners who claim to be “not-for profit” but pay themselves very well. For example in 2022 the Ellen Macarthur Foundation paid Senior Management Personnel £1,087,000, and one of them more than £210,000.
Anti-plastic campaigners do not want the public to know that the environmental problem can be solved by making the products with a d2w masterbatch instead of banning plastic altogether, so they either don’t mention it at all, or they claim that it doesn’t work.
Some of them are still claiming that it creates microplastics, even though the European Chemicals Agency, after a call for evidence and ten months’ study were not convinced that it does. It is in fact well known that most of the microplastics found in the environment are created by the fragmentation of ordinary plastic when exposed to sunlight. These fragments are very persistent because their molecular weight is too high for microbes to consume them, and can remain so for decades.
This is why d2w technology was invented. The plastic falls apart because the molecular chains have been dismantled and it is no longer a plastic. It is generally accepted now that it does biodegrade, but opponents claim not to know how long biodegradation takes, or whether the biodegradation is complete.
It is not possible to say exactly how long a particular piece of plastic will take to biodegrade in a particular place, but it is not disputed by anyone that it will be many times faster than ordinary plastic when exposed under the same conditions in the open environment. Queen Mary University say up to 90 times faster.
Will it fully biodegrade? Yes, tests have been done by Intertek showing biodegradation of 92.74% (The percentage required by EN13432 for “compostable” plastic is 90%), and no reason has been shown why biodegradation should stop before it is complete. Even if it did not fully biodegrade, it would still be better than ordinary plastic, which would have created persistent microplastics but would not have biodegraded at all.
I sometimes hear it said that biodegradability encourages littering, but much of the plastic which escapes into the open environment has been carried by the wind or escapes otherwise by accident. Insofar as it is deliberate, is it likely that the type of person who throws a plastic bag out of a car window will bother to read the label to see whether it is biodegradable? There is in any event no need to label the product as biodegradable, as it is intended to be used and disposed of in the same way as ordinary plastic.
Banning Plastic Can Make Matters Worse
An important piece of research has just been published from the Universities of Sheffield, Stockholm, and Cambridge, (Environ. Sci. Technol. 2024, 58, 6, 2716–2727) concluding that care must be taken when formulating policies so that we do not inadvertently drive a shift to non-plastic alternatives with higher GHG emissions. See also https://www.biodeg.org/subjects-of-interest/life-cycle-assessments/
The authors say “Plastics are controversial due to their production from fossil fuels, emissions during production and disposal, potential toxicity, and leakage to the environment. In light of these concerns, calls to use fewer plastic products and move toward nonplastic alternatives are common.
However, these calls often overlook the environmental impacts of alternative materials. This article examines the greenhouse gas (GHG) emission impact of plastic products versus their alternatives. We assess 16 applications where plastics are used across five key sectors: packaging, building and construction, automotive, textiles, and consumer durables. These sectors account for about 90% of the global plastic volume.
Our results show that in 15 of the 16 applications a plastic product incurs fewer GHG emissions than their alternatives. In these applications, plastic products release 10% to 90% fewer emissions across the product life cycle. Furthermore, in some applications, such as food packaging, no suitable alternatives to plastics exist.
For most plastic products, increasing the efficiency of plastic use, extending the lifetime, boosting recycling rates, and improving waste collection would be more effective for reducing emissions.”
If in addition the products were made with a d2w masterbatch, they would not persist in the environment for decades. See https://www.symphonyenvironmental.com/why-biodegradable/
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