#7 PLA- what is it? And more importantly, is it the real deal? ah…nope!
#7 PLA, or “compostable plastics” can be made from a variety of biodegradable materials including starch, cellulose, soy protein, lactic acid, or, counter-intuitively, petroleum that supposedly breaks down when exposed to the high temperatures of industrial compost facilities. As vague as this description from the prominent compostable plastic producer World Centric is, what is even vaguer is the description of where these plastics end up.
Although #7 PLA products can technically be composted, the reality is: that is simply not happening. Allie Lalor, a senior at UC Berkeley and a member of the Cal Dining Sustainability team, recently had the opportunity to visit the UC Berkeley composting facility Republic Services in Richmond. After speaking with a manager, Allie learned why these plastics do not end up as composted matter.
If an individual calls a facility such as the one in Richmond, as I did, they will be told that these compostable plastics are being broken down- even though they are not. The facility used by the City of Berkeley at least is clear on their website and in person: compostable plastics are not accepted.
All non-compostable materials are sifted out and sent to a landfill. Estimates of how long #7 PLA will take to decompose in anaerobic, low-moisture conditions such as those found at a landfill range from 100 to 1,000 years. Glenn Johnston, a manager at NatureWorks, stated in an article for Smithsonian Magazine that a PLA container dumped in a landfill will last “as long as a PET bottle.”
And yet, the use of these #7 PLA plastics is constantly increasing. This is due to a lack of information about the realities of composting, as well as to programs such as the Berkeley Green Business Certification Program, whose employees have unfortunately suggested the use of biodegradable plastics.
So what are the options going forward for local businesses and for university programs, such as Cal Dining and Pete’s?
Their first option is to switch all compostable products back to #1 and #2 recyclable plastics (#1 and #2 are the only plastics accepted by UC Berkeley’s recycling facility). However, confusion has arisen regarding the quality of the material that is produced after these plastics are recycled: is it a high-quality plastic that can be used for products such as packaging materials and carpets? Or will recycled plastic be used to produce cheap toys that are eventually sent to a landfill anyway?
Their second option is to continue using these compostable products, while simultaneously highly encouraging the use of reusables. There are, of course, several problems with this option. A problem that Dennis Uyat, a senior at Berkeley and a former member of the Cal Zero Waste team, has brought up was that compostable plastics perpetuate greenwashing, the spread of misinformation, and possible contamination of both recycling bins and composting bins with these products. Greenwashing leads consumers to use single-use plastics because they incorrectly assume #7 PLA is biodegrading.
Another problem is the fact that compostable plastics are made from corn and other crops. Undoubtedly, corn is less harmful to the environment during production and decomposition than petroleum-based products. However, corn-based products still require a large amount of nitrogen fertilizer, herbicide, and insecticides to produce in the long run, especially because the corn used by Nature Works is a GMO crop.
A final option could be to continue using compostable plastics while working with composting facilities to encourage them to lengthen their composting cycles. However, this is certainly a long-term process that would be challenging to implement nation-wide.
The best solution remains to avoid all plastic use in the first place. As the executive director of the Berkeley Ecology Center, Mark Bourque, put it: “corn-based packaging is better than petroleum-based packaging for absolutely necessary plastics that aren’t already successfully recycled…but it’s not as good as asking, ‘Why are we using so many containers?’”
Not all single-use plastics are bad. Well, specifically, Beyond Green single-use plastic. We are the real deal. Check out what makes us great by visiting our home page.
According to the definition, Greenwashing is the act of creating a false or misleading claim about the environmental benefits of a product, service, technology, or company practice.
Simply said, greenwashing can make a business to appear being more environmentally friendly than it is. It can also include green marketing that promotes the perception of products, a company, or environmentally friendly intentions.
Greenwashing is also when a company enhances positive social and environmental news, either by lying, manipulating, or twisting the real information.
Here, Kirt McGhee of BeyondGreen talks about educating the world on greenwashing and how its organization is creating products that are truly green.
In a market flooded with ‘greenwashed’ plastics, Beyond Green is a trusted alternative and backed by International certifications and organizations that support our goal. We have no EPI, OXO-degradable, PE, PLA, or PHA in our products. We are 100% proven USDA bio-based and natural OK to HOME compost. Ask us and we can prove it all, no problem. Ask others and watch them greenwash the facts to make a profit. For us, it is larger than profit, it is about the future of our planet and our children that inhabit it. We MUST educate the people on plastics, bio-plastics, and greenwashing. Just because there is a sticker, wording, or symbol on a product doesn’t make it legitimate. We must inform people what to ask for and assure that the products are truly what they claim to be and backed by certifications. We have already endured enough damage to our planet for profit, time for people to know how to assure we do not ever do this again.
The world is looking very closely into our pollution crisis seriously and while businesses and manufacturers work on alternatives, government organizations work on placing bans on single-use plastic products. Beyond Green is one business that is ahead of the curve and with the properly timed movement, Beyond Green has the opportunity to become a leader in sustainable product manufacturing and production.
The ban on plastics is an amazing step but what is missing in the statute is the definition of ALL sustainable alternatives to single-use plastics. Right now, it is cloth or paper bags as an alternative. We all were told plastic was invented to save the trees and minimize paper use. Clearly, the paper is not an alternative as we need our trees to breathe and repair our planet. To redefine plastic alternatives, we are taking our patented formulation to legislators and lobbying for new language written into the statute that clearly defines bio-plastics and the minimum requirements needed to meet this standard. We truly believe our patented formulation will be the new standard to meet for the replacement of all single-use plastics.
Here at Beyond Green Innovations, our mission is to prevent single-use plastic pollution by providing products that are an alternative to plastics while reducing the current global single-use plastic pollution by working with non-profits to help fund plastic pollution clean up movements. Beyond Green is more than just a product, it is a movement focused on educating consumers on the effects that single-use plastics have on the environment.
Beyond Green has been leading the way for 2 years now in innovative sustainable material technology in efforts to aid in the movement on reducing single-use plastic pollution in the world. With products made in the USA, Beyond Green provides consumers with quality-controlled compostable plastics. The difference is our products are made with natural, renewable material and packaged in recyclable material. Beyond Green’s patented plant-based blend promotes minimized pollution and supports sustainable development goals. This allows our organic non-GMO material to naturally breakdown in the environment and serves as food to be consumed by micro-organisms supporting a circular lifecycle that works in harmony with the environment.
If you’re interested in finding out more about how companies are ‘greenwashing’ contact Kirt at BeyondGreen, or if you’d like to share your story with us click the submit article button – we’d love to hear from you!
Source: https://plasticgeneration.com/why-are-organisations-greenwashing-when-it-comes-to-eco-friendliness/
Sustainability means meeting our own needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
Impact of Bio-Based Plastics on Current Recycling of Plastics
Bio-based plastics are increasingly appearing in a range of consumption products, and after use they often end up in technical recycling chains. Bio-based plastics are different from fossil-based ones and could disturb the current recycling of plastics and hence inhibit the closure of plastic cycles, which is undesirable given the current focus on a transition towards a circular economy. In this paper, this risk has been assessed via three elaborated case studies using data and information retrieved through an extended literature search. No overall risks were revealed for bio-based plastics as a group; rather, every bio-based plastic is to be considered as a potential separate source of contamination in current recycling practices.
For PLA (polylactic acid), a severe incompatibility with PET (polyethylene terephthalate) recycling is known; hence, future risks are assessed by measuring amounts of PLA ending up in PET waste streams.
For PHA (polyhydroxy alkanoate) there is no risk currently, but it will be crucial to monitor future application development.
For PEF (polyethylene furanoate), a particular approach for contamination-related issues has been included in the upcoming market introduction.
With respect to developing policy, it is important that any introduction of novel plastics is well guided from a system perspective and with a particular eye on incompatibilities with current and upcoming practices in the recycling of plastics.
Keywords: bio-based plastics; recycling; circular economy; policy measures; market uptake; PLA (polylactic acid); PHA (polyhydroxy alkanoate); PEF (polyethylene terephthalate)
Original sustainability article here: sustainability-10-01487
Has your local coffee shop recently switched to biodegradable cups? Or maybe your workplace canteen has made the switch to biodegradable cutlery? Perhaps the plastic packaging of your favorite magazine is now a biodegradable wrapper? You might wonder what materials are behind these biodegradable products, and exactly how much better they are for the environment than the materials they’ve replaced. Here, we explore these biodegradable plastics, and how they stack up against conventional ones.
Biodegradable plastics seem like they’ve popped up everywhere, but in reality, they still make up a tiny proportion of the plastics we use. As of 2018, biodegradable and bioplastics combined made up just 1% of the global plastics market. Though their usage is growing, they’re still only forecast to account for 2.5% of the market by 2020.
There’s a distinction to make between different types of bioplastics. It’s possible, for example, for some fossil fuel-derived plastics to be made from bio-based materials instead. On the other hand, there are plastics produced from plant-based materials that are chemically distinct. It’s the latter group that we’ll be focusing on here.
Biodegradable plastics come in different varieties with varying uses. The three most commonly used types are polylactic acid (PLA), thermoplastic starches (TPS), and polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs). As the ‘poly-‘ prefix for each suggests, they’re all long-chained polymers formed from simple monomers.
Biodegradable polymers are mostly produced from plant-based materials. PLA is obtained from fermented starch, which is itself obtained from corn, cassava, sugar cane, or sugar beet. TPS is produced by heating starch from plant materials with water and mixing it with plasticizers. PHAs are distinct in that they’re extracted from bacteria, which produce them by fermenting sugar or lipids obtained from waste or plant-based feedstocks.
TPS is the biodegradable plastic with the largest production volume. That fancy new biodegradable bag your magazine subscription drops through your letterbox in? TPS. The biodegradable cutlery that’s replaced the plastic knives and forks in the canteen? TPS.
Other biodegradable plastics do get a look in, like PLA, which has the second-largest production volume. It’s used in plastic films, bottles, and food containers. The biodegradable coffee cups your local café has switched to? They’re lined with PLA to stop the coffee seeping through the cardboard, replacing the previous plastic lining. PLA actually has a relatively low melting point, so where resistance to higher temperatures is needed, it’s used in a crystallized form that is more heat-stable.
PHAs see fewer uses which we encounter on a day-to-day basis. However, they do have medical uses – for example in biodegradable medical sutures. To an extent, their use for other applications is limited by their production costs.
This is an issue that affects the other biodegradable plastics highlighted, too. All of these plastics are more expensive to produce than plastics produced from fossil fuels (on a weight basis). According to the Earth Institute at Columbia University, PLA can be 20-50% more costly than conventional plastics. Crops from which the raw materials are harvested need to be grown, and this requires land, fertilizers, water, and time. As the enthusiasm for biodegradable plastics increases and more cost-effective production methods become available, the cost of these plastics is dropping, but they’re currently still pricey.
That’s not to say that their product is without its benefits. The volume of greenhouse gases emitted during their manufacture is less than that of fossil fuel-based plastics. It’s estimated that if all plastic production were to switch to biopolymers, the greenhouse gas emissions in the United States would be reduced by approximately 25%.
Of course, the key selling point of biodegradable plastics is in their name – their biodegradability. Isn’t it reassuring when you bin your biodegradable coffee cup to know that it’s having less of an impact on the environment, and breaking down quickly when it gets to landfill? Well, not so fast.
Biodegradable plastics do, as their name suggests, biodegrade – but the conditions need to be right. They need a moist environment with plenty of oxygen (aerobic conditions, to give it the technical term). They also need the correct microorganisms, pH, and temperature for optimum break down. Buried under all of the other trash at your local landfill site, it’s very unlikely that these conditions are being met. While they might still break down more quickly than conventional plastics, it’s going to be more than a matter of months or even years.
Biodegradable plastics are designed for industrial high temperature composting facilities. The problem? These facilities aren’t available everywhere. And if the biodegradable plastics end up in a recycling bin with other plastics, they can contaminate them and cause problems. PLA can cause issues with the recycling of another common plastic, polyethylene terephthalate (PET). For this reason, many recycling facilities don’t accept products made from biodegradable polymers.
So, there’s still work to do before we can reap the full benefits of biodegradable plastics. And they’re still not really a fix for some of the other issues with plastics we’re currently wrestling with. For example, they don’t biodegrade well in seawater. Even if we switched our entire plastic use to them, it wouldn’t resolve the concerns over plastic pollution in our oceans.
In short, biodegradable plastics are likely to become even more widely used in the future. This is positive from an environmental perspective, but will also require countries to develop infrastructure for optimal recycling of these materials. Gradually, they’ll allow us to reduce our reliance on oil-based plastics and non-renewable resources, as well as reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
A Simple Definition Of What Biodegradable Means
“Biodegradable” refers to the ability of things to get disintegrated (decomposed) by the action of micro-organisms such as bacteria or fungi biological (with or without oxygen) while getting assimilated into the natural environment. There’s no ecological harm during the process. We can either speak of biodegradable solids (also called compostable) or liquids that biodegrade into water.
What Encompasses Biodegradable Waste According To The European Commission?
The European Commission considers bio-waste to encompass biodegradable garden and park waste, food and kitchen waste from households, restaurants, caterers and retail premises, and comparable waste from food processing plants. It does not include forestry or agricultural residues, manure, sewage sludge, or other biodegradable waste such as natural textiles, paper or processed wood. It also excludes those by-products of food production that never become waste
The Environmental Impacts Of Biodegradable Waste
Waste decomposing in landfills produces harmful methane, a gas that’s 100-120 times more powerful than carbon dioxide at the time of emission. That’s why reducing municipalities’ biodegradable waste is important.
What Is Biodegradable Plastic?
Biodegradable plastic is plastic that’s designed to break up when exposed to the presence of microorganisms, it is usually made from natural byproducts, and follows rigorously controlled conditions of temperature and humidity in industrial environments. Most biodegradable and compostable plastics are called bioplastic and they are generally made from plants (such as bamboo or sugarcane) rather than fossil fuels. For these bioplastics to be fairly and effectively biodegradable, their compostability needs to be confirmed according to international standards to make sure they can be handled in industrial composting plants.
One of the most recognized standards regarding biodegradability is the European EN 13432. According to NaturePlast’s literature review of standards on this subject, for something to be considered biodegradable it needs to:
1) Have a minimum volatile rate of 50%;
2) Be able to fragment at least 10% of its initial weight above a 2mm sieve after 12 weeks after being first composted;
3) Get at least 90% biodegraded (compared to the maximum disintegration of a reference substance) in no more than 6 months;
4) Also, according to OCDE 208, when it comes to toxicity, the resulting compost needs to perform at least 90% compared to the corresponding reference compost.
Source: https://www.compoundchem.com/2019/06/26/biodegradable-plastics/
Our Carbon Neutral Pledge. As Beyond Green grows, we intend to use carbon-neutral production options and producing biodegradable products that both have zero impact on the environment, thus becoming zero carbon in totality.
Check back for details
To achieve carbon neutrality
means that your carbon emissions – that is, the carbon emitted by your day-to-day operations, such as manufacturing, traveling, and so on – are effectively canceled out.
This is achieved by balancing your carbon emissions with techniques such as carbon offsetting -which involves calculating your carbon emissions and investing in schemes that are certified as removing a certain amount of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Depending on the partner you choose to work with, the schemes will vary, but tree planting is a common one. This is because trees naturally absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, helping to reduce the volume of greenhouse gases. Or carbon offsetting can be done by simply not emitting carbon at all – for example, choosing to cycle instead of drive.
You might also hear people using the term net-zero or zero-carbon – these all mean the same thing. For example, if you used 100% renewable energy to power your business and used carbon offsetting to ensure your net operations and supply chain were carbon-free, you could call yourself a “zero-carbon” business.
Carbon negative or climate positive
Carbon negative – also confusingly referred to as climate-positive – goes one step further than carbon neutrality, aiming to remove more carbon from the atmosphere than you emit.
Carbon-negative has a number of other terms associated with it, but it is the ultimate goal for businesses of all sizes.
Technical Definition of Carbon neutrality refers to achieving net-zero carbon dioxide emissions by balancing carbon dioxide emissions with removal (often through carbon offsetting) or simply eliminating carbon dioxide emissions altogether (the transition to the “post-carbon economy”).[1] It is used in the context of carbon dioxide-releasing processes associated with transportation, energy production, agriculture, and industrial processes. Carbon-neutral status can be achieved in two ways:
Balancing carbon dioxide emissions with carbon offsets, often through carbon offsetting – the process of reducing or avoiding greenhouse gas emissions or sequestering (removing) carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to make up for emissions elsewhere.[2] If the total greenhouse gasses emitted is equal to the total amount avoided or removed then the two effectively cancel each other out and the net emissions are ‘neutral’.
Reducing carbon emissions (low-carbon economy) to zero through changing energy sources and industrial processes. Shifting towards the use of renewable energy (e.g. hydro, wind, geothermal, and solar power)[3] as well as nuclear power[4] reduces GHG emissions. Although both renewable and non-renewable energy both produce carbon emissions in some form, renewable energy has a lesser to almost zero carbon emissions.[5] which produces much less carbon emissions compared to fossil fuels. Making changes to current industrial and agricultural processes to reduce carbon emissions (for example, diet changes to livestock such as cattle can potentially reduce methane production by 40%.[6] Carbon projects and emissions trading are often used to reduce carbon emissions, and carbon dioxide can even sometimes be prevented from entering the atmosphere entirely (such as by carbon scrubbing).
Although the term “carbon neutral” is used, a carbon footprint also includes other greenhouse gases (GHGs), usually carbon-based, measured in terms of their carbon dioxide equivalence. The phrase was the New Oxford American Dictionary‘s Word of the Year for 2006.[7] The term climate neutral reflects the broader inclusiveness of other greenhouse gases in climate change, even if CO2 is the most abundant. The terms are used interchangeably throughout this article. The term “net zero” is increasingly used to describe a broader more comprehensive commitment to decarbonization and climate action, moving beyond carbon neutrality by including more activities under the scope of indirect emissions, and often including a science-based target on emissions reduction, as opposed to relying solely on offsetting.
76y 319d 07h 57m 55s
Time left till the end of rainforests
If current trends continue
A recent ULS report comparing plastic and paper bags concluded that:
Plastic bags generate 39% less greenhouse gas emissions than uncomposted paper bags and 68% less greenhouse gas emissions than composted paper bags.
Plastic bags consume less than 6% of the water needed to make paper bags. It takes 1,004 gallons of water to produce 1,000 paper bags and 58 gallons of water to produce 1,500 plastic bags.
Plastic grocery bags consume 71% less energy during production than paper bags. Significantly, even though traditional disposable plastic bags are produced from fossil fuels, the total non-renewable energy consumed during their lifecycle is up to 36% less than the non-renewable energy consumed during the lifecycle of paper bags and up to 64% less than that consumed by biodegradable plastic bags.
Using paper bags generates five times more solid waste than using plastic bags.
After four or more uses, reusable plastic bags are superior to all types of disposable bags — paper, polyethylene, and compostable plastic, across all significant environmental indicators. Source: Flexible Packaging, MD
Clearcutting, clearfelling or clearcut logging is a forestry/logging practice in which most or all trees in an area are uniformly cut down. Along with shelterwood and seed tree harvests, it is used by foresters to create certain types of forest ecosystems and to promote select species[1]that require an abundance of sunlight or grow in large, even-age stands.[2]
Logging companies and forest-worker unions in some countries support the practice for scientific, safety and economic reasons, while detractors consider it a form of deforestation that destroys natural habitats[3] and contributes to climate change.[4]
Clearcutting is the most common and economically profitable method of logging. However, it also may create detrimental side effects, such as the loss of topsoil, the costs of which are intensely debated by economic, environmental and other interests. In addition to the purpose of harvesting wood, clearcutting is used to create land for farming.[5] Ultimately, the effects of clearcutting on the land will depend on how well or poorly the forest is managed,[6] and whether it is converted to non-forest land uses after clearcuts.[7]
While deforestation of both temperate and tropical forests through clearcutting has received considerable media attention in recent years, the other large forests of the world, such as the taiga, also known as boreal forests, are also under threat of rapid development. In Russia, North America and Scandinavia, creating protected areas and granting long-term leases to tend and regenerate trees—thus maximizing future harvests—are among the means used to limit the harmful effects of clearcutting.[8] Long-term studies of clearcut forests, such as studies of the Pasoh Rainforest in Malaysia, are also important in providing insights into the preservation of forest resources worldwide.[9]