Author Archives: paul.wightman

About paul.wightman

Paul Wightman is the Manager of Business Development at ENSO Plastics, you can find contact information for ENSO Plastics by visiting our Contact page here on this site or by visiting www.ensoplastics.com.

The Truth Shall Set You Free

We produce well over 200 billion pounds of plastic each year. This is a well-documented environmental issue of grim proportions; plastic is literally trashing our planet. Brands, manufactures and consumers are fully aware and the search for solutions is in full swing. Fortunately, our awareness has spurred incredible technological advances to address this problem, some better than others.

As a brand, being environmentally accountable is a trait that serves well in the marketplace. It’s a hallmark that projects the greater good. But in a Cass Sunstein meets George Orwell world, where the FTC, EPA, FDA, IRS, (insert acronym), are watching your every move and new terms such as Extended Producer Responsibility emerge, it can be paralyzing to make that technological decision. You want to choose something that is justifiable, reliable and proven.

In a small microcosm of the larger issue, we catch a glimpse of the efforts and problems we face. In a recent article Coffee Makers wrestling with recyclability of single-serve pods, TerraCycle is boasting about recovering 25 million coffee capsules over the last couple years, but has essentially found no use for them. Are we to understand that companies are paying TerraCycle to collect and store these things in some warehouse? Add to this, according to the article, 41 million adults drink a coffee made in a single-cup brewer every day. So in a two year effort, TerraCycle could not recover a single days’ worth of coffee capsules? Clearly, the Customary Disposal Method for this application is the garbage, in other words, the Landfill. Let’s not jump on a bandwagon for the sake of waiving a green flag, the overall effect is useless.

Here’s one, California is now floating a new Bill to put the burden on companies to find solutions for plastic waste in our waterways. The same State that bans the claim of biodegradable materials (and has sued companies legitimately making those claims), is now requiring brands and manufacturers to seek out and implement biodegradable solutions?? Are they expecting producers to put their necks on the line in search for innovation? Good luck taking that bait!

Unfortunately, the principle concern of environmental safety is being contaminated with agendas that have not proven capable of long term sustainability. There is a tendency to gravitate towards colorful Green language instead of clear, black and white solutions. Today, we have the capability to address plastic pollution on an incredible scale, without contamination. Unfortunately, too many producers are paralyzed with uncertainty or are turning to the least point of resistance.

A perfect example is the less than bold stand that one of the largest producers of bottled water took, “Lightweighting”. Holy crap! That’s it? Reduce your costs and provide a rigid bag for a bottle? C’mon…the “commitment to minimizing the environmental impact” is lackluster., considering 50 billion plastic water bottles end up in U.S. landfills each year.

Here’s my humble opinion. Within a generation, we have witnessed the birth of the plastic EVERYTHING. We began filling-up our Landfills with EVERYTHING and noticed NOTHING was reprocessing back into nature. The raging river of plastic is pouring onto our planet and we place the majority of this material in Landfills. There is a biodegradation process in Landfills that is beaming with potential and we have the proven ability to produce, capture and harness one of the most inexpensive and cleanest energy resources and fundamentally address our plastic pollution problem.

Recycling is an industry I support, but the numbers don’t lie and the goal is not to prop-up one particular industry, it’s to clean our planet. We need to stop kidding ourselves and start dealing with reality. I also understand Sourcing from renewable resources, but harvesting Corn for plastic in order to claim “Compostable” is absolutely wrong. I’ve lived in many places over the years and I have yet to find my local Industrial Composting facility. But if I did, I would respectfully not bring them my plastic waste. Let’s face it, you can claim it, but it’s not going there and where it is going, this technology does nothing. For those adding metal into the equation, this technology is borderline criminal. That probably explains the parasitic tendencies of this technology in underdeveloped countries. Both of these technologies have an adverse effect on our Food Source/Supply, which alone is highly irresponsible.

When making the decision on how to be accountable for your Plastic Footprint, know what is out there, get the full story and get the proof that it performs as claimed. If you stand in the light of truth, you will be safe. 70% is greater than 30%, 2+2=4, what’s right is right.

Are We Our Own Worst Enemy in Fighting Plastic Waste?

The “Green” plastics industry can be very puzzling. When I first came to this industry, I felt great that I could be involved in something that’s good for the world. Save the world!

But then, one starts to question if the world even wants to be saved – bizarre. This industry includes bioplastics, composting, recyclers, oxo-degradables, PLA, Biodegradables, brand owners, manufacturers and of course our wonderful legislative leaders – each with differing perspectives and objectives. I’m fortunate to be involved with a company that provides multiple options, so I don’t have a single horse in this race. But I’m certainly happy not to be betting on a few of these ponies.

Nevertheless, there is no single technology available that can address all the problems or appease everyone, but there are solutions that do take a very responsible approach to the problem of plastic waste, depending on realistic methods of disposal. And this is where we run into a problem.

The recyclers do not want anything to contaminate the recycling stream. Understandable, it’s a viable industry, but the infrastructure is not capable of handling a significant enough percentage of the plastic output. I strongly support increasing our capacity to recycle. Yet, we have just as much, if not more, ability to harness landfill methane capturing (LFG) for clean, cheap energy. And due to the fact that the majority of this plastic is heading that way (landfill), we need to focus resources on supporting this effort. We can’t dismiss the greater value for the sake of a fledgling industry, it doesn’t make sense.

California (legislatures), you’re the mother ship for the quagmire that prevents innovation. California, for some very curious reason, supports solutions that are absolutely incapable of being a viable option for plastic waste. There are more practical options that address “plastic pollution” without compromising efforts to reuse. Limiting manufactures to one technology that supports only compost-ability, especially when this is such an inferior option in the big scheme of plastic usage and waste, is mind-boggling and counterproductive.

We have a raging river of plastic being produced every year, over 30 MILLLION TONS, the very large majority of this material is heading to a landfill – it needs to be managed. Many companies don’t want to get in the game, too much fluid legislation and regulation – shocker. Many adopt solutions that placate the cause of the day, despite their full knowledge that it is fundamentally flawed.

We need to get our heads out of our proverbial asses and start addressing the bigger problem, the larger percentages. There are amazing technologies out there, but there is no doubt that we are getting in our own way of making incredible progress. This is a young and rapidly evolving industry; the progress being made to address the fundamental problem we face is phenomenal. Instead of hindering ourselves with knee-jerk legislation and bans; perhaps we allow our ingrained ability to rise to the occasion with innovation. Technologies that have misrepresented their performance should not stand as the be-all to end-all to what we can achieve, it’s premature and shortsighted.

The question we need to ask ourselves is not who will win the race, but what race are we trying to win?

The plastics race is a close one, but PLA shows a clear advantage and recycling continues to drag behind.

Community for Biodegradable Plastics

The “Green” movement is growing at a breakneck speed. Brands are positioning themselves around their environmental initiatives in many ways, but whatever they do, addressing their use of plastic seems to be the most prevalent step in having a greener footprint on the environment. Unfortunately, there is a lot of misinformation and confusion in the marketplace about this subject. It seems like every time you turn around there is a new ban or an extreme move to address the use of plastic and it’s as if nobody really knows what to do at this point. But it’s my understanding that the advancements in new technologies are what we should really be focusing on embracing and bringing to market. I appreciate groups like the Community for Biodegradable Plastics that allow an open forum to discuss this matter. If you find yourself looking for answers to questions about biodegradable plastics and technology then this is the place where you can find them.

It’s a Polymergency and I Want to Talk Trash…

Let’s face it; nobody knows what to do about it. Seattle just banned the bags, there are entire towns banning the bottles, and California has banned any decision making process all together. If you don’t know about it or if you’re just blatantly unaware, there is a subject that’s coming to a movie theatre near you – literally. Films such as “Bag It” and “Addicted to Plastic” are just a couple of eye opening documentaries that are meant to be wake-up calls to the general public to stop and take notice. I remember seeing Food Inc. for the first time; it’s a snap back to reality. This particular wake-up call is screaming – PLASTIC! And it all correlates with each other, feedstock, energy, governments, the environment, industry power-players, and the ability to make wise(r) choices. We have a polymergency! You may not see it out your front door, but if you care to look out the proverbial back door, you will find that we’re swimming in plastics. 200 billion pounds of it is being produced every year and growing at a ferocious rate, most all of it, despite your own good intentions, is heading for a landfill…and it’s not going away.

There are plenty of intertwined storylines, but it boils down to three choices and what’s right – right now. First, you have your PLA’s (polylactic acid), made from corn starch. This is the choice to compost, Industrial Compost, not your backyard contraption. It’s sourced from feedstock with GMOs to harvest a specific type of crop – red flags should already be flying. If you’re not sure where I’m heading here, then I recommend “Food, Inc.” an enlightening description about genetic engineering and our food supply. Nevertheless, the PLA technology lacks the performance characteristics of tradition plastics (low melting point and poor barriers) and, by definition and despite the claims, it is not actually biodegradable. Ideally, and a stretch for sure, this type of plastic ends up in an industrial composting facility. If the compost facility actually accepts it (although not likely), it is lovingly processed into the “organic” soil under a very controlled environment. Otherwise, it’s considered a contaminant in the recycling stream and it’s undoubtedly going to a landfill.

Then there are the oxo-degradables, the choice to degrade. Okay, let’s get this out of the way, “Biodegradability” means that the organic material is capable of being broken down into innocuous products by the action of living things (as microorganisms). But, because everything eventually decays over time (albeit a ridiculous amount of time for plastic); this term is being unreasonably used when describing oxo-degradables as oxo-“bio”degradables. Oxo-degradables do just that, degrade. The technology certainly makes it look like its biodegrading. Have you ever picked-up an old brittle piece of plastic that just breaks apart in your hand? Basically, there are metal-ions interspersed along the polymer chain. When an oxo-degradable plastic is exposed to UV light and oxygen (which occurs immediately), like any metal, the ions deteriorate. The plastic becomes brittle and it breaks apart into tiny pieces of itself and contaminating, not biodegrading, into the soil and food chain. Obviously, there are shelf-life issues with oxo’s and, like PLA’s, they’re not welcome in the recycling stream. They’re heading for a landfill, and since this technology requires oxygen to degrade, and most landfills are an anaerobic (without oxygen), the plastic won’t degrade, let alone “biodegrade.”

Now a different technology has emerged, a technology which proves actual accelerated biodegradation without affecting the properties of traditional plastic. This is the ENSO technology that’s causing such misunderstanding for the California legislatures, and curiously enough, for the time being, their answer is to only allow you to be informed if the product is compostable (PLA). Considering the fact that the chances of your plastic trash being introduced into a composting facility, if you are actually able to find one in your area, are slim to none, this this is a peculiar line for California to take a stance on. The ENSO technology is an FDA approved and scientifically proven additive that maintains all the phenomenal characteristic of traditional plastic. The technology works with the recycling stream and the accelerated biodegradation occurs when the plastic enters a highly microbial aerobic/anaerobic environment (landfills). In comparison studies, when weighing factors such as sourcing, shelf-life, and end-of-life factors, the ENSO technology for biodegradation is simply a better choice.

Our scientific technology is moving towards better answers, but this is going to take time. Yet, with 100 million tons of plastic being dropped on our doorstep every year, we need to embrace proven newcomers to the scene. The answer isn’t to take away the bag or the bottle; it’s to choose a better bag or bottle. And it’s certainly not time to cripple advancements with bureaucratic finagling. Also, before we get too wrapped-up in the “green washing” of new technologies coming to market, we should start asking tougher questions. Just because something is labeled with a “feel-good” name and has “feel-good” pictures accompanying the marketing campaigns, does not mean it’s better for our environment. We are burying ourselves in plastic trash and separating the wheat from the chaff, or the marketing from the innovation, is going to be a critical step in improving our methods and preventing us from further trashing our planet.

Doing What’s Right When Nobody’s Looking

In a time when environmentally conscious branding is paramount in marketing circles, the overall adoption of “Green” initiatives should be, first and foremost, a fundamental decision. Where choices are made based on what’s right instead of what’s convenient. Often, technologies advance so rapidly that legislation is caught playing “catch-up”. It is during these times that brands face the decision of doing what is the scientifically proven best choice for the environment or shelving this choice because of marketing obstacles.

Often the final decision comes down to the corporate integrity of the brand and personal devotions of those brands leaders. The “why do we do what we do?” question. Do you implement environmental measures because it is the right thing to do, or do you implement them because it may improve your bottom line?

For example: Novartis is an international company who has made a corporate commitment to pay a ‘living wage’ to all employees worldwide. This means that they are often paying above legally required minimum wage because they understand that minimum wage does not provide for basic human needs. They implemented this corporate directive, not because it improved their immediate bottom line; but because their corporate moral standing includes a belief that an appropriate standard of living should always be respected in the course of business.

This is a specific example about human rights issues, and environmental rights follow the same path. Many companies are in business simply to make money for the shareholders, while others hold themselves to a higher standard or social cause, whether that is human rights, environmental issues, legislative involvement or truth in advertising. When your brand faces these tough decisions, it is much like a refiner’s fire where the true moral standing of your brand shines through. When all is said and done, those companies that tout their environmental accountability through the integrity of that decision and not the convenience that it offers will be clearly recognized by the consumers as brands with integrity and moral.

ENSO Plastics is both proud and honored to be partnered with many brands and manufactures who stand behind their commitments, with the foundation of scientific research, to become leaders in the adoption of improved methods for a healthier planet.