Court Rules On Landfill Biodegradable Claims

The judgment was a huge win for companies looking to address the plastics they produce that will end up in a landfill, including the support of marketing such biodegradable materials. The judge stood by the science of the matter and recognized legitimate testing. He also recognized the variations that are inherent in any natural process. The complete report is very interesting, so if you need some evening reading take a look at the entire 300 pages. Complete Report

In the meantime, here is a synopsis of the court findings:

  1. Biodegradability is an inherent feature of a material, much like color or IV, the environmental conditions will affect the rate of biodegradation – but it does not change whether the material is biodegradable. Basically, it either is or it isn’t.
  2. Biodegradation is the degradation of a material through the action of naturally occurring living organisms – there is no time frame limitation as the biodegradation time frame is dependent of the environment. This would imply that any material requiring an initial mechanical degradation prior to biodegradation would not be inherently biodegradable.
  3. The only testing valid for landfill biodegradable is anaerobic testing that uses gas production as the measurement for biodegradation (ASTM D5511, ASTM D5526 and Biochemical Methane Potential Testing would all apply). Weight loss is not valid for biodegradation testing. Aerobic testing is not valid for landfill biodegradation validation.
  4. The FTC surveys that concluded consumers believe biodegradable material will go away in less than a year was thrown out as invalid. Instead it was shown that a majority of consumers understand that the rate of biodegradation is dependent on the material and the environment. Hence the one year restriction the FTC has placed would not be scientifically or socially sound.
  5. Biodegradation of additive containing plastics can and does produce biodegradable materials.
  6. It is not appropriate to place a time frame for complete biodegradation as it is dependent upon conditions.
  7. A material need not be tested to complete biodegradation to be considered biodegradable, however the percent of biodegradation validated in the test must be statistically significant and well beyond any additive percentage. (also the background gas production from the inoculum must be accounted for and subtracted from the results).

It is wonderful to see a judge astute enough to recognize the facts and stick with the science regardless of industry pressures and misconceptions!

Is commercial compost killing your plants?

Commercial compost in California has caused the loss of a hand-full of crops including; tomatoes, peas, sunflowers, vegetables and daisies. The culprit? Herbicides in the compost. But the herbicides may be the least of your worries. With the continual push to divert materials from landfills and instead utilize commercial composting, your compost is now likely to contain pesticides, herbicides, heavy metals, prescription drugs, as well as a slew of other toxins and pathogens – all of which could put you at risk.

Read the full article here:
http://www.planetnatural.com/commercial-compost/

I personally have noticed a drastic change in the look and quality of “compost” and “potting soil” that I buy compared to 30 years ago. It used to be that the compost was a rich dark color soil, slightly moist and no recognizable fragments. Now what they sell is a light colored, dry material full of wood particles. It looks more like slightly processed mulch than soil. The material does not retain water and my potted plants have a very limited life cycle. This article points out some of the reasons why….

However, with all the contamination issues – Why does the industry continue to try and move more materials into the “compostable” zone? (i.e. plastics, paper, etc)

Sweden recycles 99% of Waste?

Today I ran across an article claiming that Sweden now recycles 99% of all it’s waste. Interested to learn how the Swede’s had figured out the recycling conundrum the rest of the world faces, I delved into the article. To my dismay, this was clever redirecting and marketing. Somehow it is now considered recycling to burn trash??
http://truththeory.com/2014/09/17/sweden-is-now-recycling-99-percent-of-its-trash-heres-how-they-do-it/

Sweden does have high recycling rates (in the traditional definition of recycling), here are the 2013 figures:

Material Percentage
Glass 89.00 %
Cardboard 77.20 %
Metal 73.10 %
Plastic 36.70 %
Drinking containers 88%
Biodegradable food waste 13.5 %
Office paper 66%
Batteries 65%

More sources of statistics can be found here (summary in swedish): http://www.sopor.nu/Rena-fakta/Avfallsmaengder/Statistik

However, when did we redefine recycling to include incineration? There is no environmental benefit to redefining verbiage to skew the data and make ourselves feel better. Let’s just stick with the actual facts and forget the clever re-directions: Sweden recycles about 49% of their trash, they incinerate about 50% and the remaining is landfilled. No sugar coating needed.

Paid to Recycle

Rethink Recycling

It never fails that at least once a week I see articles and reports regarding problems with our recycling system. Across the world we constantly see recyclers going out of business, china refusing to import recycled materials, governments and companies having to constantly funnel more money into recycling programs and an incredible media push to try and increase recycle rates. And yet, with all these problems I have yet to see an article that proposes a paradigm shift – instead it seems the thought is; “we will make up our losses with volume”.

Interestingly, you will never see recycling the way we attempt it today occurring in nature. I have yet to see a natural process that takes a wilted flower, chops it up and recreates a new flower; or feathers that have fallen off a bird reattached to another bird. Even if this is were theoretically possible, the resources required to do such a thing would make it too inefficient. This is similar to the problem we see in our current method of recycling – the resources required to complete the process are not equal to the value of the recycled material. This results in the unsustainable system we have today.

Perhaps it would make more sense to follow the example of what has worked for millions of years. In nature, waste materials are broken down into basic building blocks (soil, air, water) in a process that instead of requiring resources, provides value into the overall system (bio-degradation). These building blocks in turn are used to rebuild almost anything. This is a sustainable and resourceful process – true recycling. This is also a process that we can replicate today. Isn’t it about time we replicate the genius of nature and quit propping up unsustainable systems?

There is no arguing the serious growing environmental problem with the waste that is being produced and that recycling the way it is structured today will NOT solve that problem.  If we are to get serious about sustainability and solving the global plastic pollution issue we need to stop sticking our heads in the sand and incorporate various solutions, with recycling being one of them.  BUT, and that is a very big “but”, we have to stop pushing bad and misguided ideologies. All plastics are technically recyclable (meaning reusable as a polymer) and if society is going to financially prop up recycling businesses – we should be requiring them to take all plastics.  Additionally, for the long term objectives, all plastics should be biodegradable to ensure the polymer itself does not linger after it’s useful life.

To achieve success, we must all work together, recyclers should be accountable to embrace new technologies and join the group of us trying to solve the global pollution issue rather than simply cherry picking ideal applications, holding a facade of environmental motivation and ultimately simply looking to return a profit.

Plastics News: Auditor recommends changes to California container recycling program

By Jim Johnson
Senior Staff Reporter

Published: November 12, 2014 5:02 pm ET
Updated: November 12, 2014 5:14 pm ET

California’s beverage container recycling program, at nearly 30 years old, is broken.

With cost overruns of $100 million in three of the last four years, one key problem is paying out refunds for beverage containers that were actually purchased out-of-state and never subject to California’s deposit system, according to a new report from the California State Auditor.

Last fiscal year’s cost overrun at the program overseen by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery was nearly $29 million, the report states.

“CalRecycle needs to better respond to the fraud risk presented by the importation of out-of-state beverage containers for recycling refund payments,” warns a summary of the report issued by the auditor’s office.

California has never expected every single one of the containers subject to the deposit law would actually be recycled. And it’s that difference in what is paid by consumers and what is actually refunded that has historically covered operational costs of the program.

A break-even point for the program is a 75-percent recycling rate, but CalRecycle reported a recycling rate of 85 percent in 2013, the auditor’s report states.

“Based on that recycling rate, the revenue collected from beverage distributors is no longer adequate to cover recycling refund payments and other mandated spending,” the summary states.

While the problem is now years in the making, the program has been able to stay solvent thanks to what the auditor calls “significant loan repayments, primarily from the State’s General Fund.”

The state General Fund and Air Pollution Control Fund, at the end of the 2009-10 fiscal year, owed the beverage container program $497 million. But repayments in recent years have brought that balance down to $82 million.

These loan repayments have allowed the beverage container program to continue operating, but have also masked the program’s cash flow problems, the auditor reported. “Based on the recent financial condition of the beverage program … immediate action is needed to ensure the continued viability of the beverage program,” the auditor warns.

Solutions include reducing or eliminating subsidies to beverage makers, “requiring them to pay the full cost of processing fees” paid to recycling centers and other entities, the report states.

The state currently subsidizes more than half of thee processing fees, and eliminating that subsidy would add $60 million to $80 million.

Another way to raise revenue for the program that started in 1986 could be the elimination of a 1.5 percent administrative fee that beverage distributors are allowed to retain. This could add another $18 million to the coffers, the auditor’s report states.

In total, the audit report has identified potential savings and additional revenue of up to $233 million annually for the program.

CalRecycle Director Caroll Mortensen, in a letter to the auditor, said the agency “generally agrees” with recommendations regarding recycling program fraud detailed in the report “and will strive to implement them over time.”

Read the original post here: http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20141112/NEWS/141119970/auditor-recommends-changes-to-california-container-recycling-program

Comment by Danny Clark:

While ENSO supports recycling efforts and recycling (when done correctly) is a key part of an overall sustainability mission it begs the question why are recyclers in other states able to run a successful recycling business but in California the recyclers can’t? Maybe its time to eliminate the subsidies to recyclers in California and put that money towards a better use?

microbes,

Fungus Discovered in Rainforest Capable Of Eating Plastic Pollution

One of the biggest problems facing the earth, plastic pollution, could soon meet its match if students at Yale University are able to breed a recently discovered plastic-eating fungus on a large scale.

Plastic pollution, exemplified by the giant floating island of trash the size of Texas in the Pacific ocean, is highly detrimental to the world’s ecosystem because it breaks down extremely slow. In fact, according to the National Center for Biotechnology Information, plastic doesn’t actually biodegrade:

“Plastics do not biodegrade, although, under the influence of solar UV radiations, plastics do degrade and fragment into small particles, termed microplastics.”

This presents humans with a challenge that must soon be met, considering much of our plastic trash ends up in the ocean where it breaks down into toxic microplastics, winding up in sea life. Not only is this dangerous to the sea life, but it’s also dangerous to people because we end up consuming these very fish which we are poisoning with our trash.

Many groups and organizations have been formed to clean up plastic that ends up washing ashore on our beaches, but the vast majority of plastic pollution ends up in the ocean. The planet has a growing addiction to cheap and industrious plastic, increasing in use exponentially every year with no end in sight.

This is why the discovery of plastic-eating fungus is so exciting. According to Inhabitat,

On an expedition to the rainforest of Ecuador, students from Yale’s Department of Molecular Biophysics and Biochemistry discovered a previously unknown fungus that has a healthy appetite for polyurethane. According to Fast Company, the fungus is the first one that is known to survive on polyurethane alone, and it can do so in an anaerobic (oxygen-free) environment, which suggests that it could be used at the bottom of landfills.

The discovery was published in the scientific journal Applied and Environmental Microbiology. Researchers were also able to isolate the enzyme responsible for decomposing the plastic.

It isn’t exactly clear how this fungus will be implemented in bioremediation, but one can picture floating plastic islands covered in mushrooms which will eat the entire trash pile then sink into the ocean.

It’s also important to wean ourselves away from petroleum based plastics because they require many resources just to manufacture, and pollution doesn’t start or end with the trash in the gutter. Many other sustainable options are available which could used instead, like hemp based or other plant based plastics.

Original article by Nick Bernabe on 28 August, 2014 at 02:20 http://themindunleashed.org/2014/08/fungus-discovered-rainforest-capable-eating-plastic-pollution.html

If you’re business isn’t thinking GREEN it will soon be!

Are you thinking green? Worried that it will “hurt” your bottom line?

If you’re in the plastics business you might want to think about putting the idea in your business model. Attached is an interesting reprint of a talk that you should read… and start thinking about how your business might PROFIT from “Going GREEN.”

Get green before it gets you, speaker advises

By Mike Verespej
CHICAGO (Nov. 20, 1:50 p.m. ET) — When it comes to doing something with sustainability and climate change, “No is not an option.”

That was the message that keynote speaker Andrew Winston, founder of Winston Eco-Strategies in Riverside, Conn., delivered at Sustain 08 in Chicago.

“It is not just an add-on to your job. It is your job,” said Winston, who urged plastics industry executives to make green thinking and sustainability a core part of their strategy instead of thinking of them as just costs.

“Apply a green lens to your business. This is happening. This is real. It is time to start moving,” he said.

The Nov. 5-7 conference was organized jointly by Plastics News and the Society of the Plastics Industry Inc.

“You have to be the brain trust on this,” he said. “You dont want someone else to do it for you. You need to be the solution and help your customers find ways to change their carbon footprint up and down the value chain. You have to compete or you will fall behind.”

Winston told attendees to think broadly and creatively about sustainability and climate-change issues. Companies should heed the new drivers in the marketplace and changing attitudes among customers and communities, he said.

“Governments are now regulating things down to the chemical level,” said Winston, pointing to European Union regulations;, state take-back laws and bans in the United States; the Western Climate Initiative; and the growing debate on cap-and-trade programs for carbon emissions.

There is no federal action so far on climate change, but that is likely to change after President-elect Barack Obama takes office. In a taped message to a bipartisan conference on climate change Nov. 18, Obama said, “Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change. Now is the time to confront this challenge once and for all.”

In addition, retailers are forcing changes, Winston said.

He noted that Wal-Mart Stores Inc. now wants a “sustainability footprint” for every product it sells and is setting standards, such as how much lead toys can contain, that are “stricter than the federal government.”

“Compliance now is compliance with your customer,” he said, pointing out how Wal-Mart told detergent makers to eliminate water from their products destined for its stores and to sell concentrates — a standard that reduced the amount of resin in such containers by 95 million pounds annually and the water in those detergents by 450 million gallons.

In addition, he said, consumers are deselecting products with a perceived, even if unproven, risk to health or the environment. For example, Winston predicts the plastic bag “will be gone globally in its present form” in 10 years.

“Feelings are facts,” Winston stressed. “It may be easier to design something out than to argue with [consumers]. You should not seek out applications where the [consumer] use is about two minutes.”

He noted there are other, more valuable opportunities that can be found to replace revenue from plastic bags.

“Instead of fighting losing battles, plastics companies should be asking themselves, What can we do to reduce the carbon footprint and greenhouse gas emissions globally, ” said Winston. To do that well, they need to look at more than just their own products and manufacturing operations to the full value chain.

“You need to look downstream to your customers and upstream to your suppliers” to determine where the biggest impact can occur, said Winston. “You dont want to make the wrong investments” and spend money in one area when dollars spent elsewhere can have a greater effect.

It also means thinking creatively, he said.

For example:

* Procter & Gamble Co. determined that developing a cold-water detergent would have the biggest impact on the carbon footprint of its laundry products, so it developed Tide Coldwater.

* UPS developed delivery routes for its drivers that eliminated left turns, reducing wasteful idling and cutting fuel use by 3 million gallons annually.

* Wal-Mart cut energy use in the dairy sections of its stores by 70 percent by putting doors on its refrigerated aisles. It also is using a redesigned, square plastic milk container at some of its Sams Club stores. The container needs only half the storage space used previously, eliminates crates and cuts transportation costs by using 60 percent fewer trucks.

“You have to learn how to make products using a lot less stuff,” Winston said, noting global competition for limited resources. China is building the equivalent of 30 midtown Manhattans each year, he said, and 30 people in India move to cities each minute, creating the equivalent of 400-500 new cities in India annually.

“The challenge for us is to provide solutions,” he said. “Five years ago, the companies leading the sustainability charge were not U.S. companies. They were in Europe because they have a much more strict regulatory environment in the European Union. They are much more aggressive about the precautionary principle and ahead of us in managing waste.”

But the payoff can be the difference between making and losing money, as well as marketplace survival. A case in point: the money DuPont Co. saved from waste reduction and keeping energy costs flat from 2003-07 equaled its net profit in that time frame, said Winston.

Microbes are breaking down plastics in our oceans

Microbes eating plastics in on our oceans may have a big impact

Microscopic creatures that live on tiny ocean plastics greatly affect the fate and ecological impacts of marine plastic pollution, according to researchers from The University of Western Australia.

PhD candidate Julia Reisser and colleagues have published an article in the international journal PLOS One that contributed many new records of microbes and invertebrates living on sand-sized marine plastics.

Winthrop Professor Chari Pattiaratchi, Ms Reisser’s PhD supervisor, said there were huge numbers of floating plastics at sea and the study was the first to document biological communities on pieces from Australian waters.

The tiny ocean plastics come from the breakdown of discarded plastic items, such as single-use packaging and fishing gear.

More than 1000 images were taken while examining ocean plastics from Australia-wide sample collections using a scanning electron microscope at UWA’s Centre for Microscopy, Characterisation and Analysis.

The good news is that some of the plastic inhabitants may decrease plastic pollution level at the sea surface, where major environmental impacts occur.

Study co-author Dr Jeremy Shaw said large numbers of silica-forming algae weighed down their plastic host, potentially causing tiny pieces to sink to the bottom of the ocean.

The researchers were also able to see colonies of microbes that seem to be “eating plastics”.

“Plastic biodegradation seems to happen at sea. I am excited about this because the ‘plastic-eating’ microbes could provide solutions for better waste disposal practices on land,” Ms Reisser said.

Read the original article here: http://www.news.uwa.edu.au/201406186770/research/tiny-plastic-dwellers-have-big-impact-our-oceans

This is extremely interesting research! It is very important for the human race to better understand what is happening in our oceans and other marine environments as it relates to plastics. More and more research is showing how microbes are able to adapt to their environmental conditions to naturally break down compounds back into the building blocks that nature works with.

This research and others like it will help educate the public about the amazing abilities of those tiny unseen microbes. Its not magic its science, and from research like this as well as many others we will begin to develop a better and more detailed understanding of how microbes (who out number the inhabitants of the planet in a single handful of soil) are always working to restore balance in nature.

It’s time for U.S. employers to go green

By Margaret Badore

A survey released yesterday shows that many Americans want their workplaces to be more environmentally sustainable, and employers should take note.

The survey was commissioned by Ricoh Americas and conducted by Harris Polls. The survey of 948 employees, people defined as having part-time and full-time work, aimed to measure how much people care about their company’s sustainability practices.

The poll found that three out of four employees said they would insist on change if they saw an obviously wasteful practice at work. Sixty-seven percent said they would report if their company were harming the environment.

Perhaps most surprisingly, 44 percent of respondents said they’d rather be unemployed than work for a company that knowingly harms the environment. “People do not want to be associated with a company that is knowingly damaging the environment,” said Jason Dizzine, director or technology marketing at Ricoh. He also points out that the phrasing of the question regarding unemployment is very specific. “It’s not that they’d rather be unemployed than work for a company that doesn’t have the strongest environmental policy.”

It should be noted that the survey aimed to measure workers’ general attitudes towards sustainability, rather than look for their opinions on specific sustainability practices.

Many Americans feel that they are being more sustainable at home than at work, with 68 percent of respondents saying that they feel they do more for the earth at home than at work.

Although more than half (59 percent) of surveyed employees were optimistic about sustainability in the future, it’s clear that there’s still a lot of work to be done. Thirty five percent of employees think their companies would sacrifice the environment to increase profits and 18 percent said they’d seen an environmentally harmful activity at work.

“Employees are demanding these types of commitments to sustainability and environmental programs,” said Dizzine. He says that if companies want to attract top talent, adopting environmental practices is a good idea. It’s no longer just government regulations or even customers that should make companies care about sustainable practices. “I think it’s clear from this poll that employees are expecting us to take action as well.”

Read the original article here http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/its-time-us-employers-go-green.html

My personal comments by Danny Clark

This past weekend I was in one of the largest retail chains in the world shopping for a few particular items. Being that it was Easter weekend, there was a very large display area filled with gifts and baskets. One thing that stood out in the center of this massive display, was an enormous mound of white plastic buckets. A pile so high of these plastic buckets; useable for making gift baskets and/or the obligatory Easter egg hunt. . There must have been hundreds of these white buckets at this particular store and I could only imagine that this same display was the same all over the country in each and every retail location. Thousands upon thousands of these plastic buckets that would ultimately be thrown in neighborhood trash cans in the next few days.

I happen to know this particular manufacturer and have worked with several people within their company. This particular manufacturer is one of the top five largest plastic manufacturers in the U.S. and produces millions of pounds of plastic items just like these one-time-use buckets. The majority of products produced by this manufacturer are one-time-use, non-recyclable, that will inevitably end up in landfills around the country.

What environmental mission would you expect from a company like this that produces millions of pounds of plastics and how should they take responsibility? This particular manufacturer suggests and supports the idea “that we all should recycle our plastics.” This is a great idea but does nothing to reduce the environmental impact this manufacturer places on the environment everyday by producing millions of pounds of plastic products that are destined for a landfill.

Somehow some companies have developed the notation that by simply stating “we support recycling” is somehow reducing their impact on the environment. I’m not sure that those who take this approach really truly understand what it means to take responsibility and take action to reduce their impact on the environment. One must actually do something; make a change in some way to start reducing their company’s environmental impact.

“Lobbing the turd,” by simply stating that your company supports recycling only makes the recycling issue someone else’s problem. In my opinion if these people within this manufacturer really supported recycling they would no longer produce a single product that didn’t have at least 30% recycled content. Imagine the change this would bring?

And what about using technologies such as ENSO RESTORE that bridge the gap between recycling and landfilling plastics? The technologies are out there that are better for the environment so it’s time to stop playing the “green” game by promoting an agenda that does nothing to reduce your company’s impact on the environment. Take responsibility by doing something to reduce the environmental impact your company places on the environment every day.

We all play an equally important part in solving the global plastic pollution problem, but it’s up to each of us to ask ourselves what we are doing to reduce our impact on the environment and then start doing something now to make a difference.

Are plastics the most sustainable packaging choice?

Six major categories of plastic packaging significantly reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions compared to packaging made with alternative materials, according to a new study.

Read the full study here.

Compiled by Franklin Associates for the American Chemistry Council and the Canadian Plastics Industry Association, and using 2010 as a baseline year, the data shows replacing plastic packaging with alternative materials would result in a 4.5 times more packaging weight, an 80 percent increase in energy use and 130 percent more global warming potential.

“The benefits hold up across a range of different kinds of applications and materials,” said Keith Christman, managing director of plastics markets for ACC. “Because plastics use so much less material in the first place it results in dramatic greenhouse gas reduction, and that’s just the start. It really adds up across the different types of packaging, to the equivalent of taking more than15 million cars off the road.”

The study pits the six major packaging resins — low density polyethylene, high density PE, polypropylene, PVC, polystyrene, expanded PS, PET — against paper, glass, steel, aluminum, textiles, rubber, and cork. It considers the implications of the materials used in caps and closures, beverage containers, other rigid containers, shopping bags, shrink wrap, and other flexible packaging in a detailed life cycle assessment.

Individual studies on particular products have been done before, Christman said, on products ranging from plastic pouches vs. cans for tuna and EPS vs. paper cups. But the new study, titled Impact of Plastics Packaging on Life Cycle Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the United States and Canada, is comparatively sweeping.

It contains more than 50 tables and 16 charts and illustrations and examines each of the major life cycle stages for packaging: raw material production, packaging fabrication, distribution transport, post-consumer disposal and recycling.

The study also offers a glimpse into the potential unintended consequences of proposed and recently enacted bans on plastic packaging products, Christman said. While a plastic bottle ban might keep bottles out of waterways, the increase in energy use to manufacture, transport and even recycle their glass counterparts would be dramatic, according to the numbers.

“I don’t think that’s what people intend by some of those policies,” Christman said. “But it could happen if policies force people back to alternatives that use more energy and produce more greenhouse gas emissions.”

Read the full study here.

Click here for the original Plastic News article.

By Gayle S. Putrich
Staff Reporter Plastics News

Published: March 14, 2014 12:29 pm ET