Plastic Plastic Everywhere!

I was at an archeology lecture last night. Seems mankind put his food in clay pots for many centuries. The lecturer also spent some time discussing the excavation of a toilet pit, and the amazing number of 10 century BC tape worms and other parasites they found in the contents. All that plastic packaging has made us a lot healthier...

I utterly agree with you, but this was not really the point of my question. I would say, though, that whilst it makes us healthier I is destroying millions of other animals throughout the world. Did you look at that link about the huge floating "continent" of plastic?

Thanks

Joe

Good idea. I always choose glass over plastic where I can and wish that returnable bottles/jars were the norm. However, it still doesn't help us with the vast majority of the plastic packaging - everything from a pack of 4 apples in a plastic tray with plastic/cellophane wrapping through to masses of bubble wrap, expanded foam and plastic covering a new printer or computer.

What can be done? I can't believe that so few people see this as a major problem. In 20 years time, our children will look back in disbelief at these days and the criminal waste of resources and terrible pollution that we accept on a day-by-day basis.

Ever stopped to look at just how much plastic packaging is in your average dustbin each week?

I would like to know if there is a viable alternative in terms of biodegradable and recyclable plastic-based materials.

What about the cost of producing wax-lined paper compared with plastic?

Thanks for your comment,

Joe

I would like the recyclables. But one reason for GOING to plastic was to reduce the amount of energy used. ... Take Milk. We used to purchase 1 gallon milk jugs with milk. And to get our 'deposit' back on the glass jugs, the store had to store them, put them back on the 'milk truck', take them back to the dairy, where the jugs were washed with steaming water (even if they were 'clean') and sterilized , before being refilled. The jugs also weighed quite a bit.

The energy budget for this, discounting our washing them to make sure they don't 'stink' before we return them, includes, cost/sq ft at the grocer for 'returns', energy to drive 'excess weight' back to the dairy, handling, sterilizing the jug, and the cost of transporting the 'excess weight' back to the store. In addition, the cost of the 'deposit' did not cover the capital cost of the glass jug in case it did not get returned. The cost vs the cost of the one time use plastic jugs were much less.

Financially, there is also the cost of investing in the glass jugs, and transporting them to the dairy initially.

I am not sure, but I believe that the one time use jugs are most often 'molded on site' so there is a cost to the plastic, molding machine, and energy used to create the jug.

No 'simple answer' is as simple as it should be. But such is life.

(BTW, at one time when I lived in Houston, we could recycle glass bottles, but they are not accepted for recycling any longer due to the cost and hazards of sorting the glass into the different colors. And the transportation of the ground up glass after it is sorted was more expensive than the use of 'new sand' in the molding process, so we were told. ... Yet another 'inconvenient truth' with apologies to the former USA VP - to bad most of his arguments don't hold up to 'complete system' scrutiny)

And yes, I do take my plastic bags back to WAL-MART for recycling. One of the few convenient things there is to recycle.

That however defines a different problem. I would suggest that the plastic in the pacific is not a problem that should be solved by banning all plastics.. I would suggest that it is an engineering problem that would be solved by incentivizing the recycling or other use of that material. Just imagine how quickly that would be gone, if it had the same value per pound as say tuna fish???

I was not suggesting the banning of plastics - that would be crazy. However, I would be interested in knowing if there are viable alternatives to the non-biogradable and non-recyclable plastics by which we are inundated.

I can see that the problem would be greatly alleviated by recycling, but I am not sure that incentivizing recycling is just an engineering problem so much as a political problem.

Are you suggesting that governments should artificially inflate the price of waste plastics? I can't see it happening.

Perhaps a better way would be to put a massive tax on any plastics used in packaging or tax the manufacturers direct to such and extent that they have to produce friendlier materials.

My temporary solution, if I can find out whether there is a viable engineering solution to providing an alternative. is to encourage people to take out their apples etc from the packaging, put them in their canvass carrier bags and dump the plastic on the conveyor belt in their supermarkets. Let the supermarkets clean up their own mess.

Thanks for your comment.

Joe

No it is an engineering problem in that we engineers need to come up with a re use/recyle approach for the existing plastics that gives people an incentive to do so, like glass bottles and aluminum cans in the old days.

Governments probably won't be much help. And unwrapping your food in the supermarket does not solve anything, the plastic would just go into the dust bin at the market instead of yours.

Problem is the weight.

Are we all prepared to pay more for the product as the transport costs have gone up?

I don't think that glass will ever be back as the prime choice for packaging.

The only reason they still use it is that it remains taste and smell free even when heated and treated otherwise. Beer would be rubbish if they packed it in a plastic bottle. Even the cans taste slightly different.

There must be a way to pack liquid in paper based products without the use of plastic? What about ideas in that department. Wax or something to impregnate the paper with.

I would hate somebody to come around and say we are just a bunch of losers and sit here and complain about things.

There must be a way to pack liquid in paper based products without the use of plastic?

Clarification in RE to above: Are you thinking of using the old wax (or plastic) coated paper containers for other uses than milk containers?

Perhaps but not strictly limiting to that. No plastic but still liquid proof paper product that is the goal.

Found this following tucked away in a wiki article.

Negative health effects

Some plastics have been associated with negative health effects.

Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) contains numerous toxic chemicals called adipates and phthalates ("plasticizers"), which are used to soften brittle PVC into a more flexible form. PVC is commonly used to package foods and liquids, ubiquitous in children's toys and teethers, plumbing and building materials, and in everything from cosmetics to shower curtains. Traces of these chemicals can leach out of PVC when it comes into contact with food. The World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has recognized the chemical used to make PVC, vinyl chloride, as a known human carcinogen^[6]. The European Union has banned the use of DEHP (di-2-ethylhexyl phthalate), the most widely used plasticizer in PVC, and in children's toys.

Polystyrene (PS) is one of the toxins the USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) monitors in America's drinking water. Its production also pollutes the atmosphere, destroying the ozone layer. Some compounds leaching from polystyrene food containers interfere with hormone functions. It's a possible human carcinogen^[6].

Polycarbonates are a particular group of thermoplastic polymers, whose primary building block is bisphenol A (BPA), a hormone disrupter that releases into food and liquid^[6] and acts like estrogen. Research in Environmental Health Perspectives finds that BPA (leached from the lining of tin cans, dental sealants and polycarbonate bottles) can increase body weight of lab animals' offspring, as well as impact hormone levels. A more recent animal study suggests that even low-level exposure to BPA results in insulin resistance, which can lead to inflammation and heart disease.

That is worrying stuff and what I have been talking about.

What is noteworthy is this website which explains that some biodegradable plastics are broken down to nothing but food for bacteria albeit with some CO2.

Case491: YOU STAR!

I would be grateful if a materials specialist could look at the link kindly provided by case491 for Symphony Plastics' oxo-biodegradable plastic (http://www.carbon-info.org/carbonscience/carbonscience_002.htm and also at http://www.degradable.net/) and let us know if the chemistry they claim is correct.

They are claiming that by adding their pro-degradent additive the plastic is TOTALLY biodegradable leaving only CO2 and water. Is this the answer we have been looking for?

There must be limitations. What are they?

Joe

I am not sure, but I thought I remembered that it was made from 'corn starch'.

Now as we must balance resource uses: Do we really want ANOTHER use of massive amounts of corn products to help with the price of food world wide?

aqua doc: You can get milk and fruit juices in paper, why not ALL liquids in this or in glass? Tetra-Pak and Tetra-Brik are worth a good look at.

I was thinking of the packaging that freshly roasted chickens are put in when bought from supermarkets. Presumably these are grease-proof paper?

Most of these tetra pack style containers have plastic in the coating on the inside.

Some are vacuum damped aluminium which I believe is not much better than plastic as it is a poison to most organic life.

We seem to be surrounded by materials that we found useful for some stuff but failed to research fully until too late when they were completely integrated in our way of life.

Ever visited a paper mill. Not exactly environmentally friendly..

True as it stands but I do believe it is easier for a paper mill to become environmentally agreeable than it is for the plastic industry.

Paper mfg's are using tons of hydro carbons for the bleaching and the discolouring and what have you not but......they don't have to and the product won't be totally useless.

They also do not have to use fresh water for the pulping and they could be forced to recycle that too. No incentive for them till recently so they don't do it.

I think the biggest polluting factor is wastefulness. If we only used what we needed we would not have such a big problem.

Yea, and it takes more water and chemicals to process 'recycled paper' than initial 'raw fiber'. ... Tradeoffs. ... Even our 'paperless office of the new melinium' never came. ... I just love the extra printing on government forms to inform us of the 'paperwork reduction acts' :)

What's your point, Steve? Is it a matter of lesser of two evils? Are we destined to pullute our planet at the same rate as we increase our technologies? Is there no hope for the development of industries that are non-polluting?

I guess that we can choose to give up and take a pessimistic view of the future, or we can strike back and do all we can to invent and invest in cleaner technologies.

Regarding paper, I do agree with you. The side-effects of the bleaching etc are unpleasant. That's one of the reasons why I am pleased to see more and more people using things like on-line bank statements. Emails and chats are another way of reducing paper.

But are you saying that the damage paper causes is worse than that of plastic? Or is my question too vague?

No Joe, my point is that we as a society very often fail to take into account the law of unintended consequences. We get rid of plastic, and change to paper, and the result is:

Deforestation- which advances global warming.

Erosion of mountains and rivers clogged with silt

River pollution due to the way paper is made.

Pollution from exhaust fumes of all those trucks moving trees out of the forest.

Landfills now clogged with paper, paper that is full of chemicals.

The damage paper causes is every bit as bad as that of plastic in my opinion, or is my point not clear enough still?

The bottom line is that we should be using less paper not more.

Having said all that, I am very optimistic about the future. These are all engineering problems that can be solved, once people are motivated to solve them.

And then we only have the next round of 'unintended concequences' to deal with

"I am pleased to see more and more people using things like on-line bank statements. Emails and chats are another way of reducing paper."

Yes, but what about all those poor little electrons you are destroying by putting a signal on an LCD or CRT screen?

Just wish that the junk mail we receive on a daily basis would stop. Companies should be taxed for this or it shoudl simply be stopped. The percentage of this garbage that is immediately thrown away without even being opened beggers belief.

Case491: Perhaps this is merely a side-product of the globalisation of business, where competition is so vicious that companies have to get into the market with whatever they can get. I would like more people to consider investing in companies like Symphony Plastics. I have asked for a prospectus and am considering putting some money where my mouth is.

So hypothetically, if I was a multi-millionaire and wanted to invest in a cutting-edge environmentally-friendly plastic manufacturing company, would there be others as well as Symphony? I haven'y heard of any myself.

Why couldn't we have washing up liquid etc in vats and we just bring our bottles to fill up? This would reduce transport costs greatly. Ecover do it already, why not all the supermarkets?

One thing we can do is stop buying water in plastic bottles. Not really much point in that unless you live in a country with a contaminated public water supply. In the US, Europe, and Australia there is absolutly no need to buy water in plastic bottles.

I agree. It should only be bought once every year or so and you should reuse the bottle if you go on a walk or something else outdoors. My daughter brings a small bottle with tapwater to school every day. We may buy her new bottles once or twice a year.

I never drink water, full stop And I recycle my glass beer bottles which are taken away every fortnight by belch producing lorries which roll passed my house at tick over speed. I am doing my bit for the environment mate, don't you worry

I have just recently read an article in "Readers Digest" on bottled water. After reading this article, I will not reuse a water bottle again. The plastic will leach chemicals back into the water after a period of time. Also you shouldn't drink water that has been sitting in the heat for awhile. Same thing happens due to extended periods in heat.

Buy your daughter a good metal thermos to carry water in, plus this is recyclable when no longer usable.

We are not talking about putting water in the bottle and then leaving it for long periods.

We put water in the bottle in the morning and drink it during the day.

We then rinse the bottle and clean it. Refill it next morning and drink it again.

There is nowhere near enough time in this setup for any leaching to happen.

Anyway, the leaching problem is already known to us and officially ignored or denied.

I agree with putting the bottle in the heat (like behind a car windscreen in the sun). You can always smell and taste the plastic after that. Bad thing.

Here is the report on readers digest. There are about 6 pages at this link. Good info for this discussion. You would be amazed at the amount of water used to make the bottles.

http://www.rd.com/special-reports/the-environment/rethink-what-you-drink/article51807.html

That is exactly why I am recycling the bottle. Use it again and they do not have to make me a new one.

Our office cooler is connected directly to the mains water. The only question I have about the damn thing is when, and how well, do they clean it.

Your link re-emphasizes our reasoning to re-use water bottles. I don't understand why you told us not to

The article is from Reader's Digest, that normally does not instill a lot of faith in me even though they seem to point out the right thing here (but I only read page 1, easily bored me)

(but I only read page 1, easily bored me)

Sorry , I am only trying to give more insight into this blog on the subject in question. I am not, nor this link, emphasizing or promoting re-use of water bottles.

Really should read a complete article before commenting on it...

Hear! Hear! Steve. I get so irritated with those people who simply have to buy a little bottle of water and, once used, throw the damn thing away. It is madness.

Steve, you say "And unwrapping your food in the supermarket does not solve anything, the plastic would just go into the dust bin at the market instead of yours."

I can see what you are saying but need I remind you of people like Ruby Bridges during the 1960's? She made a stand and it had repercussions throughout the US.

Not that I think I will make a big difference on my own, but you are perhaps missing the power of alerting people to the problem. At the moment, few people really think seriously about this issue, and even less actually think they can do anything about it,

If 100 people every week dumped back the plastic packing on the conveyor belt in their local Tesco or Wwall-Mart, the store managers would soon realise something was up. It would hit the press and prety soon people would be jumping on the band wagon.

Even if it merely served to alert the average person in the street to the problem, it would be worthwhile and, you never know, some store managers might write letters to their head offices and the wheels might start to turn.

Or not...

Humans need motivation to change behavior. If you read psycology you will see over and over again the sorts of things that motivates the majority of people are such things as sex and food and pleasure.

Right now the majority of humans in the US are motivated by convienince to use plastic packaging. You might get a few altruistic types on your band wagon, but in general the plethora of "awarness" campaigns are a waste of time and breath. Wearing red green or purple ribbons solves nothing.

Unless we develop a real motivation for a large number of people to change, like money for recycling as I mentioned before, (or high gasoline prices btw) then you and a few idealists will leave your plastic at Walmart until they get tired of putting your trash in the dust bin, and they then ban you from the store, and they can and will ban you from the store.

So once again, I have little confidence in your altruistic demonstration, and I think comparing your idea with Ruby Bridges and desegregation is apples and oranges. Desegregation was imposed by the government. If the government had not done so, we would still have segregated schools in the US I suspect, and in fact we do have segregated schools in spite of the government mandate. Which brings the discussion back to government action....

Well Steve, looks like the engineering ARE coming up with something. The following is from http://www.ecosafeplastics.com/qs/page/2866/0/-1.

Oxo-biodegradable Polyolefin Plastics for Commodity Applications

Some world reknowned scientists have focused on the development of additive technologies that work with ordinary polyolefin plastics in a two-step process that accelerates oxidation and then biodegrades. These prodegradant additives control these processes in a highly predictable and manageable manner in all conditions whenever you find a source of oxygen and naturally occurring microorganisms1 (air, soil, landfill, compost, litter). This two-step process is commonly referred to as "oxo-biodegradation". see www.oxo-bio.org.

EcoBio Oxo-Biodegradable Trash Bag products are engineered to degrade and totally fragment in 90 to 120 days and 60% mineralize / biodegrade in a further 12 to 24 months after disposal. EcoDegradable products are engineered for disposal in a landfill and under these conditions will degrade and fragment at a slower rate (12 to 18 months).³

The proprietary additives used in the EcoBio and EcoDegradable family of products have been extensively tested for ecotoxicity⁴, all components are on the FDA – GRAS list, they comply with FDA requirements for direct food contact⁹ and CONEG⁸ regulations for heavy metal limitations. There are no harmful residues that could accumulate in the soil. They have also undergone full-scale landfill³ and commercial compost trials^4,5. In the compost trials, after sieving, compost that contained bags modified with these same proprietary additives met the highest standard as fertilizer under the "Austrian Compost Quality Seal".

The good news for our environment is that with the use of degradable / biodegradable additives, in addition to Reduce and Reuse – "Recycling" can take on a whole new meaning as the "organic carbon" in EcoBio modified commodity plastics can be safely returned to the natural bio-cycle in predictable and controllable timeframes.

Price & Performance

EcoDegradable®and EcoBio Oxo-Biodegradable plastic products have been developed, are commercially available and are in everyday use. For, example, EcoSafe® Oxo-Biodegradable Bags and Liners are well accepted as, unlike competing products, they provide the performance of ordinary plastic in use, and their slower mineralization after disposal adds to the fertility of the compost for soil application.

The PSI Solution

Plastics Solutions is committed to actively participate within a cross-industry coalition and with environmental groups and legislators to find solutions that avoid the necessity of punitive taxes and total bans on plastic bags. It is our view that the solution for plastic as a pollutant must be dealt with it at the source when it is made. It has to be affordable within reasonable business models.

The PSI solution is to deal with the cause of the problem at the point it enters our environment. "Bioinert" plastics can be modified with prodegradant additives such as EcoBio products to speed oxidization and safely return the carbon to the natural bio-cycle as a food source for microbes. This can be achieved within predictable and controllable time frames, thereby helping to mitigate the need to deal with the problems caused by accumulating plastic as litter.

Research shows that in a paper vs plastic comparison, plastic is the better overall solution. Not to mention that when either are disposed of in a landfill, once buried, neither will degrade. However, an oxo-biodegradable solution will cause a polybag to degrade within approx 18 months as compared to a paper bag which can take 5 years when placed on level playind fields. We have begun offering our reclosable bags in this Oxo Biodegradable format. As a company we believe the facts support that this type of technology is superior to that of other degradable products on the market.

I would like to see making 'deposit' on non-recycled plastics that are in 'disposable form' to be twice the cost of the 'trash cost' of the item.

If a soda bottle costs $.10 to pick up from the side of the road and have disposed of properly, the refundable deposit should be $.20/bottle. And if it is returned to an appropriate 'recycler' that could be a store if they chose to participate, the money would be refunded, on the spot. Monthly, the recyclers and retailers would 'settle up' with the state. The items returned for deposit would then be 'properly recycled'.

Personally, I like the lumber that is made from recycled bottles. It takes some energy, but most kinds of plastics can be used to make this 'lumber replacement' products. It is also lighter, works with standard wood working tools, etc. And that should be used for ALL public projects that would otherwise be a large consumer of 'stick wood'.

A place called 'plasticlumberyard.com' sells it in the New England area I think.

...

we should also shop more long distance stuff using trains rather than trucks. It costs less and used less energy per ton of goods moved. Currently it is not as fast as trucks. /// again, that is just IMHO.

Hi and welcome servant74.

I have looked at the 'plasticlumberyard.com' site and I wonder what types of recylcleable plastic they can use? Surely there are lots of plastics (thin cartons etc) that simply cannot go into the mix. Presumably this process is cost/energy-efficient because they do it commercially?

I am not replying again as this has all been done before in CR4.

Just check the archives for posts about the plastics, the dumps, the chemicals leaching out, the estrogen behaviour of plastics, the cancers in this world and the carrier bags we all should not be using.

Dear Steve,

Health did not come with the use of plastic, it arrived with the understanding of diseases and how to prevent them. Plastics could still be the biggest source of unwanted chemicals in our environment. Just because it has not been researched enough does not mean they are safe. The only thing that could be a larger contributor to unwanted chemicals in our environment is over prescription of medicines.

There are several conditions and illnesses that are on the rise and NOT only due to better diagnosis. Cancer, Asthma, eczema and autism. What are they caused by? Almost no plastic is stable at normal atmospheric conditions.

case491: Great stuff. Thanks for comments. I will look at the rest of CR4.

Joe

I like that answer case. Extra points for "an economy of words".

g a 2 u

Going to have to disagree Case.

Elimination of food contamination by use of plastics was a huge contribution to health.

I would not argue that chemicals in dumps are a problem. It is, and I would agree that we do not fully understand all the ways plastics and other chemicals effect us biologically.

But it is undeniable that plastics have also improved quality of life and health.

I think we both are right for the correct part of our deduction.

Of course food keeps better due to a string of measures not in the least the method of keeping it from contaminations such as airborne and waterborne bacteria.

Until somebody conclusively proves to me that the leaching of ionic plasticizers out of the packaging and the printing ink, I will not trust it fully. I do not believe that we can just look at one facet of plastic and "resign" to the feeling it will be ok.

Problems are constantly identified but for some reason there seems to be very little or no incentive for the plastics and printing industry to pick up on it and identify either way if it is the leaching that causes it or not. They rather leave the problem firmly in the land of hearsay and make believe so they can keep on denying it.

We , as consumers, are a large group but not very organised. In industry as a whole there is an even larger amount of packaging used , and wasted, as every company that sells/and buys knows what the cost is if the products get damaged. The cost to the environment is not in this equation. We use thousands and thousands of micro switches each year and still we buy them each in its individual plastic wrapper. We also use thousands and thousands of stepper motors and they also come in an individual bubble case to protect them. It would be so easy to organise some recycling here but the will seems to be somewhere else.

I do not know what they do with the garbage where you are but here they burn it to generate electrical power and steam for heat. That means the plastic too. So in away something is reclaimed from it.

I agree with your concerns about the contamination of our environment. I also believe the problem is larger that just plastic. The powers that be need to come up with means to reduce all human wastes to some level the environment can handle naturally. The practice of dumping of waste in the ocean needs to stop. The problem is that how do you get small governments that line our coasts to stop. Some can not afford the expense to eliminate it any other way. These practices go back to when most of what was dumped was biodegradable.

How do they stop the pollutants from getting into the air when they burn the plastic? And where are you?

Joe

Scrubbers on the stacks.

The problem with your philosophy is that it requires an observer at the end of life to make the judgement that you had a "hell of a time". You will be dead and everyone else will simply be left to pick up the mess you left. There is no glory or romance in screwing up things for other people to straighten out.

The coolest life in my opinion is one that, when over, does not leave muddy footprints for those that are left. They have better things to do than to admire the handbrake turns you managed in your final and terminal manoeuvre. It would be better to spend your time trying to make the world a better place for us all. Displays of boyish abandon to fun are all well and good when your a kid, but when you become an adult there are responsibilities that you need to share; and if you don't, someone else has to step up and do it for you while you're out and about having a whale of a time.

Plastic pollution might not be as important an issue as things like stopping muslim sharia law being embedded in UK and US legislation, finding cures for major diseases, bringing up children to be free-minded and bold-spirited and living a life without injuring others. However, it is more important than "having a good laugh". Or am I missing your point?

Or am I missing your point?

I suspect you may be missing Ozzb's point. These signature tag lines are not intended to be taken as literal statements -- I hope no one thinks I really believe that one should fake sincerity, for example. I take his quote to mean that he wants to end life "all used up," having accomplished many things and having lived life with gusto. Better that than taking the safe route, which is to risk little and accomplish little.

I apologise. I was v tired last night when I noticed the comment. Silly of me really. What an arse! Having the flu and being tired is not the best recipe for making intelligent and sensitive comments on a forum.

Joe

Thanks Ken

Hope you feel better today Joe

Not really, ozzb. A rather tenacious strain of bug. But I feel a lot better that I have set the record straight with you!

Apologies against for being a cantankerous old bugger!

Joe

Where I am, no burning of trash. ... Just filling up another landfill.

Now how can we 'mine old landfills' for resources to (1) be a new resource for raw materials, (2) allow the total volume of trash we 'store' in landfills to go down, (3) allow better reclaiming of the land associated with the landfills.

??

Overall, the "plastics" environmental issue is really just another dimension of our cultural addiction to oil and gas. I have read previously, that the ready availability of plastics for making consumable / non-durable / disposable items such as grocery bags and packaging materials, is dependent upon the ubiquity of ethylene as an industrial by-product of petro-chemical refineries. As such, one of the arguments often presented by skeptics to campaigns to ban plastic shopping bags, or to reduce the quantity used in packaging materials, is that this very ethylene will still end up in the environment (and not in a form that creates any value).

However, one implication of the increasing unavailability of (or competition for) hydrocarbons as time progresses, is that reliance on cheap ethylene for plastics production (as a de facto waste transfer mechanism) is in itself inherently unsustainable. Therefore, this adds another dimension to the plastic materials sustainability debate – we should probably be looking for some substitute material for things like plastic bags (and bottles, packaging materials, etc.) for reasons other than their (direct) environmental impact.

Plastics are, by definition, organic materials. So, the question is, what processes exist that sustainably produce materials? The only such process I can think of, offhand, is photosynthesis in green plants, which is the materials production process closest to being "sustainable" – as long as the sun shines (i.e., solar energy is available for the plants to convert directly into matter). At the present time ethylene is made from ethane by "steam cracking", another process makes ethanol. Since ethanol can be made from cellulose in a sustainable way then it is conceivable that we can still have very useful polymers such as high density polyethylene as part of a biopolymer suite, from this source. However it is likely that it will be far too expensive to use in disposable products like bags and packaging materials.

Environmental problem solved? By no means! But, it is instructive to note that the environmental "scourge" (as the anti-"plastic bags" campaigners describe it) will, like all other things related to fossil fuels, peak at some time. Unless a very cheap substitute source for plastic manufacture is found, it is only a matter of time before it is too valuable to be simply "given away" as in the case of grocery bags. Source stocks for making plastics will always be available, but the fact remains that the allocation and distribution of this material will change in the short- or medium-term future.

Thanks Karl. I can't help but think that you are right in saying that it will probably be a matter of waiting for resources to run out for something major to be done with the widespread misuse of plastics. However, I suppose that if we waited until the availability or otherwise of world resources dictated all our buying habits, we would continue to repeat the mistakes of the past - i.e. moderating, say, eating cod or tuna because the sea stocks are depleted. It's easy to moderate the use of disposable plastics when there are no raw materials left to produce it.

Part of being human is using reason in advance of necessity, at least for me. If there is a choice between taking responsibility through personal choice or having it thrust on one because of resources becoming too valuable?

I would be interested in hearing more about how a sustainable photosynthetic solution could be found.

Also, why is it that some plastic in the marketplace IS biodegradable? Is that plant-based rather than fossil-based?

Joe

I don't think the plant-based (as opposed to fossil-based) source of the ethylene would actually affect its status as being biodegradable – the idea of bio-polymers (despite the implication of their name) is more from the perspective of the source of the raw materials, than their actual structure or physical properties. I have not been following recent developments in degradable plastics (such as "eco-friendly" grocery bags) too closely in recent years. However, I recall that the two main areas in which degrading plastics were been developed (and to some extent marketed) in the recent past were:

· Photodegradation

· Biodegradation

However, it is important to note that the "degradability" of these materials is generally in terms of their macrostructure (as opposed to their innate properties); unlike truly biodegradable materials they do not degrade away literally to nothing. As such, while marketed as an "eco-friendly" environmental technology, they have a much more limited role in mitigating the issues associated with disposal of plastics and are not actually final solutions – in general, both the photodegradable and biodegradable plastics are usually conventional polymers modified to allow the discarded materials to lose the bulk of their structural integrity (with most of the synthetic polymer remaining chemically intact).

One approach to photodegradable plastics involved the introduction of a small amount of carbon monoxide in the polyethylene structure. The presence of the CO results in the polymer having a small proportion of randomly allocated carbonyl group, which allow them to undergo chain scission upon absorption of light in the 300-320 nm range – this mechanism gradually creating 'cracks' in the polymer chain leading to loss of structural integrity. This leads to the plastic degrading physically, although from a chemistry perspective little of the material actually decomposes – the chief advantage being that unsightly plastic litter "disappears" to a powdery residue on sufficient exposure to sunlight. The main problem is that when these materials are disposed of too quickly (i.e., buried in landfills) they do not degrade any further since they are no longer exposed to direct solar radiation

Other mechanisms for photodegradable plastics included the incorporation of a "photosensitizer" into the formulation of the plastic rather than altering the chemical constitution of the polymer; this photosensitizer being a light-absorbing substance which initiates chemical attack on the polymer molecules. For example hydrogen atom abstraction followed by attack of atmospheric oxygen – the redox properties of a number of transition metals making their compounds suitable photosensitizers.

The so-called "biodegradable" plastics have traditionally been conventional polymer materials formulated with 5-10% of starch as a binder – these have been most frequently used for the "eco-friendly" plastic grocery bags. The starch (an isomer of polyglucose) is readily biodegradable, and when this binder degrades the bag loses its structural integrity. However, once again, it is only the binder component that is actually biodegradable – the remaining synthetic polymer remains unconsumed but as a less noticeable powder (or from my personal experience as "shards" of crumbling powdery plastic bag residue). Some of the problems associated with these materials are that the binders are incompatible with climates of higher humidity (insofar as the microbial degradation is initiated before the product has fulfilled its consumer life-cycle).

A few years ago there were reports of developments in genuinely biodegradable plastics – using bacteria such as Alcaligenes eutrophus which produces the polyester polyhydroxybutyric acid (which has properties suitable for making softdrink bottles); there was also talk of developments in bacteria that produce more flexible copolymers suitable for plastic bags and packaging materials. These would be completely biodegradable plastics, but I am uncertain of how much progress has been made in that particular area.

Karl. I am so grateful for your detailed response. It sounds, then, as though non of the current plastic options truly biodegrades. If you come up with more info on the bacteria-based options, please let me know.

It looks like I am going to have to start militant action and return at the checkout all the plastic containers they have around the food I buy. It's going to be fun!

There is plastics available that do completely break down to water and CO2 with food for bacteria to boot.

I seem to have responded with this reply earlier BUT TO THE WRONG THREAD.

I do not know where I posted it so somebody on CR$ is reading my reply and will be completely confused as to why I went on and on about plastics. sorry

Just google bio degradable plastics and you should find them. The only problem then it seems is with the inks they use to print on them.

Found my missing post, it is no22

Either I missed it or it didn't show up or something.

Dear Sir or Madam; You could shop where all produce is available in bulk, bring your own B U R L A P S A C K S. In a few cases I have purchased, 1 Apple, 1 Carrot, I stick of Celery, and told them:" Please Don't Wrap It, That is My Lunch." So AS SOON AS THEY WEIGH IT, I Proceed to Eat IT. Good Shopping, & May The Lord Richly Bless You. P.S. This was when I was on the Road 1,000 miles a day.

Lots of good thoughts, Joe. Excess packaging is crazy -- there is certainly no good reason for packaging (for example) four apples on a plastic tray covered with a plastic film. A polyethylene bag is a convenience for hauling home a bunch of potatoes, but at least polyethylene bags recycle easily.

I admire your impulse to make a stand: there are loads of products that could be put in half the packaging, and many products (such as bottled water) in which both the product and packaging can be avoided altogether.

Thanks Ken. I have just been scanning a website and came across a little more information on alternative options that have been tried and some of the bigger players who have been involved:

"...starch-based packaging, generally made from agricultural commodities such as corn or potatoes. These dissolve in prolonged contact with water and heat.

...Earthshell of Santa Barbara, California, produced biodegradable packaging to fast-food giant McDonald's, as well as selling biodegradable plates and other stuff. They went bankrupt in 07 and were taken over by Renewable Products Inc. Their products are all made from a proprietary mixture of limestone and potato starch.

Others players -- which include Minneapolis-based Cargill Dow LLC (follow this link to see some really interesting developments: http://www.natureworksllc.com/); Novamont SpA of Novara, Ital (http://www.materbi.com/); and the German BASF Group (https://www.basf.com/us/en.html) they all provide biodegradable packaging that is based largely on corn starch. These companies and others are being drawn to a global market now estimated at well above $25 billion a year.

A key testing ground for biodegradable packaging was the 2000 Sydney Summer Olympics. Thanks to pre-Games pressure from environmental groups, food vendors for the Games used only biodegradable and recyclable packaging. More than three-quarters of the 660 tons of garbage generated each day at the Games was kept out of landfill, with much of it composted instead.

But that was the Olympics, the ultimate controlled environment. The challenge now is for biodegradable plastics to succeed in the chaotic real world, closing a roughly 2-to-1 price gap with traditional packaging.

The good news is that consumers and most businesses are keen on greenery. The bad news is they don't want to pay anything more for it.

Without government mandates, this price differential is likely to hinder the spread of biodegradable packaging in the short-term.

"I figure it will be at least five years [talking in 2002!] before fully biodegradable packaging becomes really widespread," says Leo Hyde, research and development manager for DuPont Australia. "Without legislation to help it along, this packaging will just have to be price competitive."

DuPont's are also doing interesting stuff in this field with water-soluble form of the more traditional recyclable material polyethylene terephthalate. "

Sorry about the random nature of this message - rushed for time - but it should give some more ideas of what's been going on, as far as my brief research has found.

I noticed that even Wal-Mart is reducing the packaging on products that they sell.

Since they have such a big pull with the manufacturers, it is making a difference. Things that used to be in boxes are bubble packed, things that used to be in bubble packs are in 'bulk bins'. At least on things that make sense.

From my opinion of Wal-Mart they started looking at it from two sides, does it help the consumer, and can we make a buck on it.

They are making a buck on it by (1) reducing their price because the manufacturer is forced because Wal-Mart knows it costs them less. (2) reduced shipping costs ... even packing material costs when you ship tons of it around the globe, and (3) we like it as consumers so we are 'happier' to buy from them.

In an experiment of reliance and self control I have given up drink bottles and cans almost completely.. maybe one a month. or much less! (Except beer)

I also gave up fast food.

That has helped me reduce my garbage, and gain my health.

It's been a year, and I will not go back.

No other method works so well.

JE - I approve wholeheartedly.

I, too, avoid anything that has lots of plastic on it. One thing I do is to avoid buying fruit and veg at supermarkets now. Instead, I use a local organic health food shop that only uses paper bags and will not use any plastic carrier bags. Almost all their other products are in glass or paper and all the fruit and veg as separate in wooden display boxes. A blast from the past but very reassuring for its lack of waste.

Perhaps there is a strong role here for the diminishing small retail shops to lead the way with bio-packaging. They will attract extremists like me and keep themselves in business as well. I would be more than happy to pay a little more for products and packaging that are sentitively sourced and stored.

BTW, there is an interesting link here that you might not have seen: http://www.ethicalsuperstore.com/?gclid=CJri-8Wk6ZICFQtQQgodZAbD4A, They sell a range of products (pretty basic at the moment) that try to address some of the ills we are doing.

a very small and maybe insignifigant point, but in the republic of ireland the shops have to charge a levy of 22 cents per plastic carrier bag.i know this doesn't deal with the problem of producing or disposing of plastic bags but most people here are now bringing cloth reusable bags when they go shopping, there are nearly no plastic bags floating around in the wind and people no longer have a stash of plastic bags in the closet.it is a small step but at least in the right direction

Thanks for that, guest.

I for one wouldn't mind seeing a government tax levy on ALL plastic goods. It would bring in short-term income for the Treasury as a positive but would make us less attractive for imports; but I think some countries have to start somewhere.

Ireland's far too beautiful for plastic bags to be floating around anyway. You'd be a mad idiot to allow it!

Joe

I used to live in Ithaca NY. There, even in the late '80's they had an enlightened recycling and garbage collection policy. You paid for garbage collection by the pound, and recycling was free. Thus, you naturally did whatever you could to recycle more, waste less, and buy things in more efficient packaging. Here in GA, recycling bins are about 1/3 - 1/4 the size of garbage bins. In Ithaca, it was almost the reverse.

Sounds like a good idea, Ken, back in Ithaca, NY. I bet people used to try to get away with stuffing garbage in with the recycling! They certainly do it here. In fact, Don Joly, a comic TV legend in the UK, was on "The Complainers" last night dealing with exactly this issue on Channel Five.

How were people charged for the garbage? Did they have an account set up that was automatically debited or was a bill sent by the local authority?

I assume the garbage collection trucks had automatic weighing and recording facilities - but before the micro-chip? If not,did the garbage collectors have to weigh and record each one? I would be interested in whether it worked out more or less cost-effective than a standard levy on each household. Were you still tax locally for refuse collection as well as the "by the pound" charge?

They only started to introduce chips on wheelie bins a couple of years ago so that they could weigh garbage. However, this has only been for enforcement of bye-laws relating to excessive weight in the bins, bot the nature of the weight; and there is no charge made by the pound or kilo.

I like the idea in Ithica! ... I miss not having a recycling program where we are in Tennessee. In Houston it wasn't great but it was something, even if it cost extra (like $2.50US/mo where we were)

NICE!

I was home in Ireland last year where people have successfully made the transition from stores no longer offering plastic bags. Offering a paper bag at 15 cents made people quickly realize that the recycleable bags are a good option. I watch my parents (both retired) as they shop now. My mom won't buy anything that has too much "wrapping" on it, like the aformentioned styrofoma tray holding four apples wrapped in cellphane. Recycling is different too to what we have here in Boston. We simply throw everything in the blue bin, paper, plastic glass etc yet over there in that little green isle they have to segregate it all.

I listened to public radio last month where a state senator was suggesting introducing a tax on plastic bags and half the callers called in saying we shouldn't be wasting our time. They were so off the mark it was comical. We all are intelligent here and know that we won't resolve the crisis of refuse in the morning but we can make little steps that will create a large solution in time.

So do a little and watch it help a lot.

I believe the biggest thing you will be fighting is people wanting (read demanding) an easy lazy life.

Shame really.

Apathy is our biggest enemy

If people are actively fighting this change, can you still call it apathy?

I think this is one step further down the pit, people are prepared to stick out their neck for this which is worse in my view.

Ironically..it is in some cases the oposite of laziness. I watched this woman at the supermarket (but that's an entirely different story ), now where was I ...yes this 'old dear' was putting a single carrot into a plastic bag, then a parsnip into another bag....all extra effort for no good reason (unless she collects the bags for picking up dog poo?)
The veg are going to get peeled and cooked for pities sake...just shove 'em in lose.

I did hear on TV (so it must be true ) that the clear plastic they wrap cuecumbers in increases their shelf life threefold....so which is 'greener' to wrap or not to wrap that is the question?

Bit of a ramble sorry folks
Del

Hi Del the cat.

Cucumbers from Portugal or Israel imported to the UK probably do need to last long than those sourced from Kent! Maybe something could be done about this then maximum longevity would not be such a problem.

He doggie poo can go in one of Ecosafe's little wonders - 100% biodegradable doggie bags (see link: http://www.ecosafeplastics.com/qs/page/2858/2846/-1).

Apart from paper bags, I haven't yet come across a company that produces 100% biodegradable food bags. Any clues?

Waidesworld: You do my heart good! Viva the Great Isle!

Many have cut down use of other things (multiple layers of cardboard, with boxes within boxes), and have gone to plastic to save weight and transport costs. In many ways the plastic has cut down the 'garbage'. Most of the inks are not lead based, and will properly decompose.

Many things I like to purchase 'bulk packed'. Rice, beans, pickles, olives, but few retailers where I am do that anymore. Newer 'health' or 'environmental' stores cary things that way, but they tend to jack up the prices.

Purchasing bulk food via a co-op or farmers market you might find such things.

Many of the plastics that are not easily recyclable are the ones you (and I) cannot find a place to take them. Purchase only products that have minimal packaging AND contact the manufacturers of your preferred products and let them know WHY you are changing to another, typically less desirable product. It is voting with your wallet.

The ones I hate are the aluminum self heating soup containers. It basically makes concrete in the base when you pull the tab, and the heat of calsificaton generates the heat to heat the soup (in a separate compartment). It takes a lot of energy to generate the cement/quick lime to go into the process, a lot more than comes out. The aluminum can is OK, but I don't know if the concrete inside makes it un-recyclable. It also makes the single serving of soup very heavy to ship. And as a consumer we pay for it ALL. Shipping, packaging, disposal cost, in addition to the contents we want (a cup of soup). (grumble)

time for me to calm down. I hope this helped someone some.

I must admit that I have never been attracted to using the 'self-heating' soups. They seem gimmicky. I suppose there may be situations on alpine expeditions when they are okay, but their weight might outweight their value.

Nothing is straight forward with plastics...

New to CR4 and love it--- Plastic is only one of many. I wonder if the Romans knew that lead in their cups would kill them, they would have changed? It's not poison if it does not kill right away. Sitting on the wrong side of branch while sawing. Nature has a way of balancing one way or another. Education, Education and maybe that is not enough.

Welcome mac.

I think you are going to be right at home here.

Joe

Good Comment mac - The Goverment has the Money they Gave 900 billion to the Banks that Gambled our money and lost - Clean the Trash up --- It also would put people to work cleaning it up the trash - We clean up every thing else -- including the Mega (Smart) Rich that hit Golf Ball of the Deck the Bird eat them and Die - And it is True Nature will balance But she need a little help along the way - when we get to far ahead of her