Two opposing perspectives on the future of plastic clashed at the United Nations summit on plastics, which ended this month in Busan, South Korea. Over 3,300 participants, representing 170 nations and more than 440 observer organizations vigorously debated a variety of options to craft an “internationally legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment,” according to the United Nations’ website. Arguments tended to fall into either one of two different approaches.
The approach advocated by one side may be summarized by concerns raised by Ecuadorian Ambassador Luis Vaya, the meeting’s chairman, who stated that the amount of plastic ending up in global waterways every day is equivalent to the capacity of 2,000 garbage trucks, and microplastics are found worldwide in food, water, soil, human organs, and even the placentas of newborn babies. This side sought international agreement on caps for production of many types of plastic and phase out of certain products.
The other main group’s approach emphasized the practicality, versatility, and value of plastic, including the “sovereign right” of each country to use its own resources for economic development. They cited the vast numbers of workers involved in the collection, sorting, and recycling of plastics. They pointed to the potential for increased recycling and better regulation to address many problems.
The debate sent mixed signals to manufacturers about which products might come under regulation, and which might find increased opportunity. The conference also came during a season when many consumers’ purchases sent signals to the international marketplace about what is in demand right now. Some purchases are votes, intentional or not, about whether we should cut plastics, better manage plastics, or do both.
To avoid plastic consumption, some people purchased durable, reusable, reversable textile gift wrap. Textiles are often made from plastic fibers, but Shiki Wrap (http://www.shikiwrap.com) makes this product from recycled plastic textiles. Chalk up one vote each for recycling plastic and for reducing consumption.
Recycled plastic textiles have been marketed for years by companies such as Patagonia (www.patagonia.com), with its recycled-content fleece, but now more companies are making variants. For example, Craghoppers promotes its CO2RENU clothing line (https://www.craghoppers.com/mens-co2-renu-full-zip-fleece-lichen-green/), and recycled plastic textiles are even used in fancy products such as luggage lining the Avalon product line offered by Ricardo Beverly Hills (www.ricardobeverlyhills.com/pages/avalon-rpet-collection). These are durable, long-lasting products, so again, a vote for both recycling plastic and reducing consumption.
Another in the category of “both” is Earth Rated dog poop collection bags (www.earthrated.com/collections/poop-bags) . Some bags are made from plant-based substitutes for plastic, and they advertise degradability, but if the product will end up in a landfill, the degradability just produces more methane gas, not useful compost. Instead, Earth Rated makes dog poop collection bags from 65% certified post-consumer recycled plastic. The company’s website claims reduction of the bag’s carbon footprint by approximately 22% as compared to its previous generation of bags.
Project Repat (www.projectrepat.com), makes quilts from old tee-shirts customers send in for the purpose, but the insulating layer behind the tee shirts is fleece, with synthetic fibers. For a purer statement of avoiding plastic, an affliated company, Scrappy (www.scrappyclothing.com), makes socks from Project Repat’s cuttings.
Entirely avoiding the plastic of synthetic fibers is an option for reducing market demand for plastic. For example, a 100 percent cotton blanket is offered by Cool Calm (https://www.dsanddurga.com/products/the-cool-calm-cotton-set). The company’s sales material claims its products’ natural fibers allow increased “breathability,” “gentle warmth,” and “natural softness.”
Taking it a step farther by adding reuse to substitution, Cleancult (www.cleancult.com) offers cleaning supplies that pair paper refill cartons with aluminum bottles designed to be refilled. This cuts the use of plastic bottles. Personal cleaning can also avoid plastic.
Further eliminating packaging, dip shampoo and conditioner bars (https://dipalready.com/collections/double-dip/products/double-dip-coconut-almond-full-size) offer a new way to use haircare products.
Giving a gift of food is also a way to avoid waste. Buy a few months of subscription to a local Community Supported Agriculture cooperative, or if you want to give a gift to an office, subscribe for a few months of delivery from a company such as The FruitGuys (https://fruitguys.com/), which delivers fruit to offices. Unlike their other snacks, the company’s fruit comes packaged only in recyclable and recycled cardboard.
Some food products seem to be competing for the longest list of virtues, and being “plastic free” fits this profile. For example, it is no longer enough for the perfect chocolate bar to be single origin, wild forest grown, chemical free, and made from cacao beans grown by indigenous family farmers. No, the Bolivian Wild Beniano Cacao Chocolate Bar by Kindred Forest (www.kindredforest.co.uk/shop/bolivian-wild-chocolate) also markets its plastic-free packaging, made from Forest Stewardship Council certified paper and featuring “low-migration, water soluble, vegetable-based inks.” Even the product’s tamper evident seal, rather being made from plastic, is made from cellulose.
Whether buying a recycled plastic product or avoiding plastic entirely, each purchase consumers make is a vote for the kind of future they want to see.
David Goldstein
David Goldstein, an Environmental Resource Analyst with the Ventura County Public Works Agency, may be reached at david.goldstein@ventura.org or (805) 658-4312
More from David Goldstein
All articles from David Goldstein
Disclaimer
The opinions expressed here by David Goldstein and other columnists are their own, not those of Bioplasticsnews.com
Leave a Reply