Category Archives: Green Marketing

Plastics need to work in our waste systems, it’s that simple

In a recent article by Meg Wilcox, “5 sustainable packaging developments to watch in 2021” it’s a race against the clock for companies to meet their sustainability goals. This will be difficult to say the least, although the “100 percent reusable, recyclable or compostable packaging by 2025” is a catchy mantra, it is filled with empty promises and an utter lack of commonsense.

The idea that recycling is synonymous with sustainability, and recycling lobbyist calling for MORE money through EPR, is a joke. Goodrich calls it “groundbreaking”, I’m thinking more on the lines of highway robbery. The Reuse “experiment” is novel, however the scale is proportional to a freckle on an elephants ass and the core problem (EOL) is admittedly still unanswered. Plastics do not and should not end-up in an industrial compost, the infrastructure is not available and there’s NO return value. Plastics are inherently collected/managed in our Solid Waste systems, not Organic. There is no return value in making plastics Compostable. We need less rapidly biodegrading waste, not more. Making plastics perform like organic waste, defeats the purpose, and compounds the problems. This is the “unintended consequences when you switch from one system to another.”

But first, let’s understand that technologies are widely available today and there are international testing standards to ensure plastics are designed to work in every MANAGED waste system we have available. Connecting these dots should be the priority of every Sustainable Packaging initiative.

Kate Daly, managing director at Closed Loop Partners states, “…more and more materials are lost to landfill that we’re not able to recapture as a valuable resource.” I would argue the reason for this is because groups like Closed Loop and SPC miserably fail to see today’s modern landfills as a valuable resource, which they have become.

It’s a shortsighted and an oddly pervasive problem in the sustainable management of plastics, a lack of knowledge pertaining to how waste is actually managed. There are several different ways plastics can be disposed after use, landfilling, recycling, incineration, and composting. The primary systems that capture the majority of discarded plastic waste are specifically designed to protect the environment and convert solid waste (carbon based) into returnable value through anaerobic bioremediation. Today’s modern landfills have emerged as a major resource for clean renewable energy (LFGE/RNG). A baseload energy resource that is providing heat for homes, fuel for vehicles and power to industries.

Sustainability managers must first and foremost understand that 90% of plastics are deposited into landfills, properly and customarily to avoid littering. Even plastics with higher recycling rates such as PET beverage bottles and HDPE bottles have a higher percentage entering the landfill than being recycled. This means every sustainability decision must provide a beneficial aspect regarding the landfilling of that plastics [ASTM D5526/D5511]. That’s sustainability through accountability, everything else is an experiment in speculation.

The New Plastics Economy’s “Global Commitment” defies commonsense

The “root cause” solution to plastic pollution is in making sure plastics work in today’s managed-waste systems. It seems too simplistic an answer considering the enormity of this problem. But when it’s all said and done, plastics (petroleum or plant based) must work in our managed systems, especially the one that primarily collects plastic waste – period. This is the only path to a full life-cycle and systems approach for profoundly better economic and environmental outcomes.

Plastics are created from energy and, through our managed systems, plastics should ultimately be recovered as clean energy, closing the loop and ensuring plastics never become “waste”. Energy growth is directly linked to well-being and prosperity across the globe. For developing nations, this need is fundamental to improving and even saving lives. Energy is the building block for creating plastics and ensuring Energy’s recovery at the end-of-life is essential in eliminating pollution and achieving Circularity.

Which brings me to the New Plastics Economy’s “Global Commitment” pledge which states, “The Foundation believes the use of anaerobic digestion is currently limited for plastic packaging as at the date of publication,” to justify the focus on Compostability as the only acceptable end-of-life solution, but only for “specific” and “targeted” applications. Otherwise, it’s Recycle or die! The myopic pledge even doubled-down declaring that plastics-to-energy is not part of the circular economy target state! A stance that is radically shortsighted and naïve considering the scope of this crisis and the current state of Recycling.

But what strikes me as incredibly odd is that out of the dozens of experts, the broad stakeholder review process involving 100 organizations and experts across businesses, governments, NGO’s, academics and standard-setting organizations, you’re telling me that nobody noticed that this statement is completely ass-backwards?!?

The vast majority of plastic packaging is commonly and customarily discarded in facilities that are large-scale Anaerobic digestors (a.k.a. modern landfills) Limited? Not true, nearly 90% of U.S. Municipal Solid Waste (especially plastic packaging, because that’s what it is – not organic waste) is sent to anaerobic waste systems (practice and scale) – BTW, 0% to Industrial Composting facilities! These anaerobically managed MSW facilities are actively collecting and turning waste into fuel for vehicles, heat for homes and providing power to industries. They are highly regulated and strictly managed, and no other waste-management system collects more discarded plastics – none!

We have a pollution crisis and to get any tangible grip on this problem plastics must work in the systems that are available to us today. Strategies and pledges based on contingencies and “further innovation” only stagnate our abilities to act now. Recycling will never be a solution to pollution. We have systems in place and technologies available to make meaningful strides today, based on data, science and certainty that eliminate pollution with return value, not just continuing to “fight against” it with sentiment and no substance.

Energy recovery must be included in strategy and design, it is the alpha and omega. From where it comes, it must return. Negating this principle in the management of plastics is blasphemous to the fundamental principles of “Circularity” and only serves to continue down a linear path that solves nothing.

Compostable plastics do NOT create compost

If you are anything like me, you’ve no doubt heard about and thought about how wonderful the idea of compostable plastics sound. Plant based materials used as feedstock to make compostable plastics, that once used simply discard in the compost pile and voila, the plastics you just used has now become nutrient rich soil to help aid in the next generation of plant growth. It sounds so healthy and natural it must be good, right?

The major issue with “compostable plastics” is that they don’t make compost. What’s that, you say? That’s right, compostable plastics don’t breakdown and convert into compost or result in nutrient rich soil as the process and name would lead one to believe. This aspect of compostable plastics is extremely misleading. Let me explain.

The ASTM D6400 is the Standard Specification by which all compostable plastics strive to meet. Compostable plastics that claim to be certified compostable will no doubt have to pass the ASTM D6400 specification. Organizations like BPI (Biodegradable Products Institute) provide 3rd party certifications that a compostable plastic product meets the requirements of the ASTM D6400 standard specification. Even California has product labeling legislation that requires any plastic item claiming to be compostable must meet the ASTM D6400 Standard Specification in order to make such claims. But what exactly are the requirements for meeting the ASTM D6400 specification?

ASTM D6400 includes a handful of requirements that address things like soil toxicity, disintegration, heavy metals and biodegradation. To understand what is left after “composting” compostable plastics, (which is biodegradation in an environment that has oxygen readily available to micro-organisms) let’s take a look at the portion of the ASTM D6400 that addresses biodegradation the rate and extent required in order for a compostable plastic item to pass/fail.

The requirement for a material to pass ASTM D6400 and be considered “compostable” is that the material must reach or exceed 90% conversion of the carbon within the material into carbon dioxide (CO2). In other words, 90% or more of the material would need to be turned into CO2 (converted by micro-organisms) during the time-frame of the test – 180 days. Given this requirement to convert a minimum of 90% of the carbon within the sample compostable plastic item into CO2 (gas), simple math at this point would tell us that the remaining carbon (that’s part of what makes nutrient rich soil) would be equal to or less than 10% of the total carbon making up that compostable plastic item. So basically 90% of the item will simply go up into the atmosphere as CO2 gas, it will not remain behind as soil.

For those who are new to composting or compost, the purpose and result of a natural and healthy composting process is nutrient rich soil (compost). This soil is made up of various organic materials and nutrients; nitrogen, potassium, microorganisms, humus (a carbon rich material) and other forms of carbon. Carbon is arguably the anchor to having nutrient rich soil as it helps to retain moisture and provides a foundation for all other microbial processes for optimizing healthy plant growth. With less than 10% of the carbon in a “compostable plastic” remaining as soil, there is little to no value as nutrient rich soil. Even worse, 90% or more of it was converted to greenhouse gas and sent into the atmosphere.

Compostable plastics may “compost” (biodegrade by micro-organisms in an oxygen environment) if placed in the right composting environment, but they do not create compost (nutrient rich soil).

Power Packed Plastic Packaging

image-landfill-gasplant

ENSO’s technology provides a value investment in sustainable packaging. Our material is added to standard resins (including biopolymers) at a 1% load rate during the manufacturing process, just like a colorant. There are no changes in processing parameters or any performance characteristics. However, it ensures proper performance compliance within our anaerobic waste environments. Anaerobic digesters, bioreactors and today’s modern landfills continue to be the single-most common disposal method of plastic packaging and all contribute to the energy revolution that is upon us. Within these active infrastructures we have an opportunity to reduce environmental plastic waste and recoup end-of-life value.

Waste-to-Energy (WtE) is an active and growing resource, available throughout the developing world. In the U.S. alone, ENSO’s technology provides an immediate 85% capture rate to reduce greenhouse gases and over 75% conversion of biogas into clean alternative energy. The returns are significant, measurable and applicable to greenhouse gas initiatives, energy recovery efforts and the environmental waste problem. Plus, it provides intrinsic value for consumers as well. With both world and U.S. energy demand expected to increase in the future, America’s energy resources will only grow in importance. Ensuring today’s plastics will be tomorrow’s energy is inseparable from America’s larger prospects for improved economic growth, job creation, security and quality of life.

For less than the average price fluctuation of raw material, pennies on the dollar, ENSO can put real power in your packaging. It is the most efficient way, both economically and environmentally, to elevate the end-of-life value through energy recovery. Get it out of the environment and into the grid, join the energy revolution!

To learn more, please contact ENSO Plastics.

Orange County is packing power in Landfill Gas-to-Energy

th7PCDTFTS

Do it for the OC! Can you imagine the concentration of plastic packaging that’s accumulated in Orange County alone? Beyond standard recycling, did you know that Orange County has installed four Landfill Gas-to-Energy facilities? The most recent $60 million dollar investment will power 18,500 homes. Altogether, the four facilities will produce 400,000 megawatts of electricity per year, enough to power more than 50,000 homes. These projects are turning our waste into clean energy all over the country and right now they’re the single-most common disposal environment of plastic waste. Ensuring energy recovery in packaging design offers the greatest value in full-scale recycling. Get it out of the environment and into the grid, make today’s waste, tomorrow’s energy! Design for disposal.

Connecting the dots between plastic waste and renewable energy

With the recent United Nations Conference on Climate Change, there’s a lot of talk about harnessing renewable energy. Take a company like Unilever who’s committed to becoming ‘carbon positive’ by 2030. Meaning, 100% of Unilever’s energy across its operations will come from renewable sources, in just 15 years! Interesting, now let’s quickly switch gears and take a look at plastic waste and the sustainability efforts taking place there. With the advent of Extended Producer Responsibility, brands and manufacturers will be held accountable for the post-consumer stage of its product. What is the common disposal method for the majority of Unilever’s packaging and products? Well, if we’re being honest and using the facts and data available, it’s all ending-up in a landfill. Recycling comes in a distant second and composting and incineration are practically nonexistent. However, considering this new agenda Unilever proposes, is this really a negative thing? Not if someone can connect the dots.

Today, the bad thing about landfills is in name only. Perhaps we need to start referring to this single most common disposal method simply as Bioreactors. The vast majority of all MSW ends-up in “landfills” that capture and control the gases being produced in these environments and turning it into energy. This valuable resource, Landfill Gas-to-Energy, is considered the most economical form of green energy available today, even when considering the costs of hydro, solar and wind. Once converted, landfill gas can be utilized in many ways: to generate electricity, heat, or steam; as an alternative vehicle fuel; or sold on the energy market as a renewable “green” power or gas. All States in the U.S. (including California) utilize gas to energy as part of their green initiatives and companies like Mars, Dart, Toyota, Frito Lay, SC Johnson, Tyson Foods, Kimberly-Clark, Coca-Cola, Anheuser Busch, just to name a few, are already harnessing this energy resource.

If Unilever’s plastic products and packaging where designed for this specific environment, it could essentially power itself with the trash it produces. Today, we have the ability to make plastic waste naturally biodegrade in these amazing anaerobic environments, Bioreactors. The Recycling industry and the Compostable Plastics industry will continue to rail against this, but it’s time more companies rely on facts and scientific data instead of myths and emotions that simply coddle consumer’s inaccurate perceptions. Today, and in the foreseeable future, Landfills/Bioreactors will absolutely play a major role in the way we manage waste and harness renewable energy. The demonization of this fact is counterproductive to the goals being set. The power is in the hands of companies like Unilever to see beyond the status quo and implement solutions that provide accountability and viability for itself and its customers. Connecting the dots is the key to a sustainable future.

Are sustainability efforts appeasing the myth or addressing the facts?

A recent blog on LinkedIn caught my eye, “9 Take-Aways That Resonated From SPC Advance.” It was about the recent SPC Advance Conference, a GreenBlue / Sustainable Packaging Coalition members only plus guests event.

“SPC Advance is an amazing opportunity to gather different members of industry, academia, and government together to share perspectives, knowledge, and insight into sustainability,” said GreenBlue and Sustainable Packaging Coalition Executive Director, Nina Goodrich.

Sounds good, right? The who’s who of professionals, the decision makers on the environment, packaging and creating a more sustainable future… Then, you hear some of the feckless rhetoric that emerges from this brain trust and it leaves you wondering if this is just an exercise in futility.

Kim Carswell of Target commented, “Bio polymers move packaging closer to petroleum independence as part of our move to a circular economy.”

Kathleen Sayler, Assistant Director of the EPA’s Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery says that currently in the U.S. over 30% of edible food goes to waste resulting in significant social, economic and environmental costs, and it is estimated that Americans waste 141 trillion calories of food annually at a cost of over $161 billion dollars. Food production accounts for 50% of land use, 80% of freshwater consumption, and 10% of total energy use in the United States.

These two need to get together for a come to Jesus moment. Land system change is a major environmental factor and our existing use in farming is already having perilous effects on our environment. Let’s not be too quick to jump into corn, sugarcane or potatoes as something that’s going to save the planet. We should not waste food and our farming should be to feed people, not our insatiable appetite for plastic, it’s not sustainable. It’s a recipe for our economy and ecosystem to go down the circular drain.

Walmart Senior Sustainability Manager, Ashley Hall, said that customers should not have to choose between products that they can afford and products that are better for them and the environment. She emphasized Walmart’s focus on selling products in recyclable packaging, and stated that the company has made packaging made with recycled content a priority.

There is no term more ambiguous than “recyclable.” Take a walk with me down Walmart’s isles and I’ll point out all the packaging that will not be recycled. Heck, we can just visit one isle; you know the one that sells all the trash bags, tinfoil and plastic utensils and foamed plates? Next time, take a look at all the Great Value brand items, along with the other brands – none of it is being recycled. Don’t even get me started on those crappy light-weighted plastic bags that have “Recyclable” on them – nonsense. We need to start basing our actions on facts and scientific data, instead of propagated myths. If you’re going to make the claim, prove its happening. It’s long overdue that we separate facts from fiction. “Recyclable” – theoretically, and that’s the problem.

Kim Carswell, Group Manager at Target stated, “Packaging is a gateway to our consumers.” She continued saying that Target likes to give consumers alternative options for the products’ and packaging’s end-of-life instead of the materials having to go to landfill, and that Target is constantly asking how its designs influence end-of-life.

Personally, I’m not interested in trying to find a non-existent alternative option; I’m not a garbage sorter. When I buy the product, I throw away the packaging. There is nothing more counterproductive in advancing our environmental position than the demonization of landfills. Landfills are not the problem; packaging simply needs to be designed for the most common disposal method. If that’s a landfill, let’s not keep making decisions on folklore and pretending this isn’t happening. Landfill Gas to Energy is the cleanest and most inexpensive alternative energy resource available; it’s the byproduct of the biodegradation process that is coming from the natural breakdown of organic waste in this specific anaerobic environment. 80% of all municipal solid waste goes to modern landfills that control or capture this natural gas. Perhaps it would make it easier on everyone if companies like Target took genuine accountability and made all their plastic packaging Landfill Biodegradable, because it’s not getting recycled and I’m not getting in my car and taking it to my local industrial composter 80 miles away.

Amy Duquette, Sustainability Project Manager at HAVI Global Solutions, which represents the packaging department of McDonald’s, said that packaging is the consumer’s last experience with the brand, and that experience should be as positive as possible. Through mechanics such as the How2Recyle Label, brands can empower consumers to do the right thing, in this case recycle packaging.

Regulations such as Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) are predicated on the brand/producer doing the right thing, not the consumer. The experience being created isn’t positive, it’s downright misleading! Think of all the plastic applications used at McDonald’s, the white cup, the lid, straw, utensil, packaging for utensil, condiments, all of it, IS NOT getting recycled. It’s not happening, it does not exist, stop it. EPR simply means producers will be held accountable for the post-consumer stage, not the consumer. It does not say you need to recreate a new disposal environment or champion one over the other. It starts with an easy question, where does all (minus the idiots who litter) the McDonald’s plastic applications end-up? If you said a landfill, you’re on the right track. Honesty is the best policy. Now what? That’s the path to accountability.

Al Metauro, President & CEO of Cascades Recovery, Inc. said, “Doing the same things and expecting a different outcome is insanity.” He’s absolutely right; we’ve been beating the same drum for a long time and it’s not improving our situation. These Goliaths of industry need to understand where these plastics will be disposed of and implement solutions based on that environment and, as Laura Koss, Assistant Director of the Federal Trade Commission, points out:

Be as specific as possible.
Make environmental claims clear and prominent.
Don’t make qualifications about those claims only in asterisks and in tiny print.
Be honest about what your product represents and does not represent.
In the FTC’s eyes, it’s all about what a “reasonable consumer” might think about an on-package claim.

It’s absolutely unreasonable to take landfills out of the equation. Today, modern landfills are energy generating power plants and the vast majority of all of our waste ends-up in this managed and profitable environment. Let me emphasize this important and critical fact: today, nearly every State within the United States (including Alaska) already implements landfill gas to energy programs and each of these States count that energy creation as part of its green energy efforts. This is already an infrastructure that is in place and it’s a proven resource. Spinning our wheels to create more programs and new infrastructure such as for recycling, composting, incineration, etc. will bear a significant environmental and economic cost to implement.

A recent study, “Plastics: Establishing the Path to Zero Waste” provides the most comprehensive and informative look at plastic disposal today and the environmental, economic and social impact of landfilling, recycling, composting and incarnation. The only way organizations will truly reach sustainability with plastics is if they take a step back look at the entire picture and evaluate the facts.

Let’s stop promoting environmental fairytales, get the science and data to make decisions about environmental solutions that will have the greatest positive impact today and begin doing something productive. We must strongly evaluate concepts such as bioplastics, recycling and compostable plastics that have no positive impact to our environment; show me the data!!! It’s time for these Big Boys to put their big-boy pants on and take responsibility and accountability for what’s actually happening. Let’s get past trying to just make the consumer “feel good,” progress feels good.

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:

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.
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.
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.
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.
Biodegradation of additive containing plastics can and does produce biodegradable materials.
It is not appropriate to place a time frame for complete biodegradation as it is dependent upon conditions.
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!

FTC Finds Company’s “Recyclability” Claims Misleading

Company’s Green Claims for Plastic Lumber Misleading

FTC Order Requires Firm to Have Distributors Take Down Ads With Unsupported Claims

A Wisconsin-based manufacturer of plastic lumber products has agreed to stop making allegedly unsubstantiated claims about the recycled content and recyclability of two of its brands of plastic lumber.

Under the FTC settlement, the company, N.E.W. Plastics Corp., must have credible evidence to support any recycling-related claims it makes, and is required to tell its distributors to remove any marketing material for the two products provided by the company before December 2013.

“Consumers deserve to know the truth about the products they are buying,” said Jessica Rich, Director of the Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “Many of them want to buy products that are environmentally friendly, but they can’t do that if they get information that’s wrong or unsupported.”

N.E.W. Plastics Corp., which also does business as Renew Plastics, is based in Luxemburg, Wisconsin, and makes plastic lumber products, including the Evolve and Trimax brands, which are used to make items such as outdoor decking and furniture. It sells the products to consumers through distributors.

In its administrative complaint, the FTC alleges that between September 2012 and March 2013, N.E.W. made false and misleading claims while promoting Evolve and Trimax. Specifically, the company claimed:

* that Evolve products are made from 90 percent or more recycled content;

* that Trimax products are made from mostly post-consumer recycled content; and

* that both Evolve and Trimax are recyclable.

The proposed consent order prohibits N.E.W. from making any statements about the recycled content, post-consumer recycled content, or environmental benefits of any product or package unless they are true, not misleading, and are substantiated by competent and reliable evidence, which for some claims must be scientific evidence.

The proposed order also bars N.E.W. from making unqualified recyclable claims about any product or package, unless the product or package can be recycled in an established recycling program, and such facilities are available to at least 60 percent of consumers or communities where the product or package is sold. If N.E.W. can’t meet these requirements, it must qualify the claim regarding the availability of recycling centers. If only part of a product or package is recyclable, N.E.W. must disclose to consumers which part or portion of the product or package is recyclable.

Finally, the proposed order bars N.E.W. from providing anyone else with the means of making false, misleading, or unsubstantiated claims. The order will end in 20 years.

Information for Consumers

The FTC has new information for consumers in a blog post on its website. Also the FTC provides detailed guidance to businesses on environmental claims in its Green Guides.

To read the full article from the FTC go to http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2014/02/companys-green-claims-plastic-lumber-misleading

Plastics Recycling-Where Did We Go Wrong Mentally?

Ok before the recycling folks and their allies come Para Trooping into my office and try to seize my computer, I need to get out right away that recycling IS good and should be pursued to every extent possible. This rant is about how best to accomplish this without essentially putting our heads in the proverbial sand!!!

I came across an interesting article in Waste & Recycling, “Coffee makers wrestle with recyclability of single-serve pods” where it speaks to the challenges with recycling single serve coffee pods made by Keurig which was acquired by Green Mountain Coffee Roasters Inc. Apparently since 2009, the company Terra Cycle has been able to capture 25 million of similar discarded single-use cups, and has been attempting to make good use of them, but it sounds like it is very difficult to nearly impossible to recycle them. Also, the article says that, “approximately 13% of the U.S. adult population drinks coffee using these single-use cups.”

So let me get this straight: Approximately 40 million (13% U.S. Population) of these containers are discarded EACH DAY, and the recycling efforts over a 2 year period to recover these cups has amassed a whopping 25 million? Of which there has not been any useful value found for these lucky cups? Am I the only one that sees a problem here? In 2 years it has taken a noble attempt by Terra Cycle (I have much respect for this organization, awesome innovators!) to get nearly half of ONE days worth of consumption of cups, to then turn around and make a useless pile of cups, all in the name of recycling!!!??? Is there no other way to approach this end of life issue? Is this the best thing we can do with this issue right now –today? Why does recycling feel so good for the marketplace? I repeat; 1/2 days’ worth of material collected over the span of 2 years, with no outlet in sight, yet we turn a blind eye to this complete failure because it is labeled “recycling”…so many questions and comments.

So at this point, I should proclaim the easy answer -after all it is easy to be a critic and to point at what is not happening -or flat out failing. But I do not propose to have an easy answer or “silver bullet” to cure all, but I do have sense enough to see that we need to quit being so brainwashed into thinking recycling is the silver bullet as well. It is clearly not working alone in that only 7-9% of all plastics are being recycled. And lets not forget that a vast % of our recycled plastic WAS going to China, and now may not find a home as China’s “Green Fence” is clearly revealing. We need to incorporate a multifaceted approach to our waste issues and material resources.

What if these cups were made to biodegrade in a landfill where they most likely belong? 75.8% of all Municipal Solid Waste goes into landfills that capture the biogas created by biodegradation. There has been unprecedented growth in utilizing Landfill Gas to Energy (LGE) in the U.S. recently as the experts now understand that it is better to promote and capture this alternative source of energy, rather than try and stop nature taking its course and entomb or dry landfill our waste. The “no smoking” signs on an old landfill turned golf course has to make one nervous and draw some obvious conclusions-we cannot stop nature from taking its course. (:

Lastly, the Utopian Societyists say we need to move to 0% landfills. I say that this is wrong and absolutely impractical. We should rather be saying we need to achieve 0% waste. If composting is considered Organic Recycling (which by the way creates 0% energy and captures LITTLE to no emmissions) then similarly, LGE is a valuable alternative to creating useful end of life values towards 0% waste. Picture that huge pile of unusable “lucky because they were recycled” coffee cups and tell me I’m wrong. Can we PLEASE do more than bury our heads in the sand and actually address today and tomorrow and not let “best” practices get in the way of the good we could do NOW? If the total recycling rate of all plastics is 7-9%, that means roughtly 91-93% of our plastics is going to a landfill where it has no further value. If they were biodegradable plastics like the kind ENSO Plastics assists brands and manufacturing to create, they would slowly biodegrade and be an excellent feedstock to LGE. If you are one that thinks that recycling is the only answer, I ask you to shift your mentality and question status quo, question what is popular as “best practices” with our waste and push for a multi-pronged approach to our sustainability. People are smart if they open their eyes and minds to innovations and bury their head in a more progressive endeavor like answering the question, “What more can we do? Today?”

-Del Andrus