Category Archives: Thought Provoking

“It isn’t that they can’t see the solution. It is that they can’t see the problem.”

I recently ran across a quote by G. K. Chesterton, “It isn’t that they can’t see the solution. It is that they can’t see the problem.” This quote is a powerful reality and sums up the environmental issue that our planet faces when it comes to plastic pollution. It got me thinking and I thought I’d write a blog about it.

There is no doubt that the global population is rapidly growing and will continue to do so. We have exceeded 7 billion humans on this planet. The planet we live on is a closed system, meaning that the amount of natural resources we have available to sustain our needs and wants will not change. We can certainly take resources and change their form, but the overall fundamental is that as the population grows we will continue to place a greater burden on the environment to mine, process, develop and use resources to sustain the global needs.

In today’s global perspective, developed countries do not see the massive problem that is being created from the way we are currently using plastics. We live in an environment where the convenience of placing items in a black, blue or green bin and having that material go away makes the problem much less visible.

In underdeveloped countries where the global population is the largest, the problem is much more prevalent and problematic, as they don’t have the resources available to discard their plastic garbage or recycle. People living in those conditions are faced with the problem on a daily basis with plastic litter being a serious problem. Litter at this level blocks water ways, increases illness, kills wildlife, destroys the landscape and this material is not going away anytime in the next hundred years.

There is a sad irony to today’s situation in that the largest concentration of human populations are in underdeveloped countries. Both China and India each have a population of over 1.2 billion people. Both of these countries have poor infrastructure to handle waste and almost no recycling. The United States falls way behind in total population with just over 300 million people.

The irony is that the 300+ million people in the United States consume the planet resources at a rate of over four times the rest of the world! So we are consuming at a level that far exceeds the rest of the world, but with our developed infrastructures we become blind to the problem. Sure, we have recycling, biodegradable and compostable solutions but the truth is the development of our infrastructures makes it convenient for us to see the solution, but not the problem, and therefore we take our time with implementing solutions that will matter most.

The big question lingers in everyone’s mind of What’s going to happen when these underdeveloped nations begin consuming at the level we are currently consuming at? Both China and India are increasing their middle class and that results in more and more people wanting the “convenient and finer things in life”. Considering the fact that the population in the US is only a fraction of the global population, when these underdeveloped nations reach a point where their citizens are consuming a fraction of what we currently do; the planet and its inhabitants are in for serious problems.

It makes sense for brands, manufacturers, retailers, and consumers to get involved in solving this problem. The truth is that consumers will not be able to solve this problem on their own. The biggest opportunity to addressing this issue and making the most impact is within the industry. We are the biggest consumers of resources and control the greatest deal of the problem from sourcing to end-of-life. ENSO Plastics is an environmental company and brings to the table renewable, landfill biodegradable, compostable (home and industrial), marine degradable and products with lower carbon footprints so that industry can take control and reduce its impact on the environment.

The team here at ENSO is dedicated to helping brands, manufacturers and businesses solve the plastics pollution issue facing the world. We would love the opportunity to sit at the table and be a part of the conversation of how your company can take control of the plastic materials being used and implement solutions that make sense and will have the most impact. ENSO Plastics has a proven track record and we ask that you just give us the chance to show you what can be done.

China recycling cleanup jolts global industry

Business Week By Joe Mc Donald October 03, 2013

BEIJING (AP) — China for years has welcomed the world’s trash, creating a roaring business in recycling and livelihoods for tens of thousands. Now authorities are clamping down on an industry that has helped the rich West dispose of its waste but also added to the degradation of China’s environment.

The Chinese campaign is aimed at enforcing standards for waste imports after Beijing decided too many were unusable or even dangerous and would end up in its landfills. Under the crackdown dubbed Green Fence, China has rejected hundreds of containers of waste it said were contaminated or that improperly mixed different types of scrap.

It is abruptly changing a multibillion-dollar global industry in which China is a major processing center for the world’s discarded soft drink bottles, scrap metal, electronics and other materials. Whole villages in China’s southeast are devoted to processing single products, such as electronics. Household workshops break down discarded computers or appliances to recover copper and other metals. Some use crude smelters or burn leftover plastic and other materials, releasing lead and other toxins into the air. Green Fence is in line with the ruling Communist Party’s pledges to make the economy cleaner and more efficient after three decades of breakneck growth that fouled rivers and left China’s cities choking on smog.

Brian Conners, who works for a Philadelphia company that recycles discarded refrigerators, says buyers used to visit every week looking for scrap plastic to ship to China for reprocessing. Then Beijing launched its crackdown in February aimed at cleaning up the thriving but dirty recycling industry.

“Now they’re all gone,” said Conners, president of ARCA Advanced Processing.

American and European recyclers send a significant part of their business to China and say they support higher quality standards. But stricter scrutiny has slowed imports and raised their costs. The decline in the number of traders buying scrap to ship to China has also depressed prices American and European recycling companies can get for their plastic and metals.

“While we support Green Fence, it has increased our cost of doing business,” said Mike Biddle, founder of MBA Polymers, a plastics recycler with facilities in California, Europe and southern China. “It takes longer and there are more inspections.”

At the same time, people in the industry say recyclers that invest in cleaner technology might be rewarded with more business as dirtier competitors are forced out of the market. The crackdown also might create new opportunities to process material in the United States and Europe instead of shipping it around the globe.

China’s recycling industry has boomed over the past 20 years. Its manufacturers needed the metal, paper and plastic and Beijing was willing to tolerate the environmental cost. Millions of tons of discarded plastic, computers, electronics, newspapers and shredded automobiles and appliances are imported every year from the United States, Europe and Japan.

But environmentalists have long complained the industry is poisoning China’s air, water and soil. And Beijing, ever vigilant about possible threats to the legitimacy of one party rule, now wants to be seen as addressing increased public awareness and concern over pollution.

“The waste recycling system in China really needs to be updated to reduce pollution,” said Lin Xiaozhu, head of the solid waste program for the Chinese group Friends of Nature.

In 2011, recycled scrap supplied some 21 percent of the nearly 100 million tons of paper used by Chinese industry, according to the state-run newspaper China Daily. It said that resulted in a savings of 18.7 million tons of wood.

In Europe, electronics recyclers recover about 2.2 million tons of plastic and metal annually and send about 15 to 20 percent of that to China, according to Norbert Zonnefeld, executive secretary of the European Electronics Recyclers Association. Its 40 member companies include electronics manufacturers and copper smelters.

European recyclers welcome China’s tighter enforcement because it will help them comply with European Union rules on tracking waste and ensuring it is properly handled, said Zonnefeld. Still, he said, some traders have run into trouble.

“I have heard material has been sent back,” said Zonnefeld. “Of course, they should have known. They were just gambling.”

The United States relies even more heavily on China to recycle its waste.

Americans threw away 32 million tons of plastic in the form of packaging, appliances, plates and cups last year, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. About 1.1 million tons was collected for recycling.

About half of plastic soft drink and water bottles collected in the United States for recycling are sent to China, according to Kim Holmes, director of recycling for the Society of the Plastics Industry in Washington. She said nearly all plastic from U.S. electronics waste is exported to Asia.

“The export market is a major component of the broader U.S. recycling industry,” said Holmes in an email.

China allows waste shipments to contain no more than 1 percent unrelated material. But Customs officials say some were found to be up to 40 percent unrecyclable trash.

“Some unscrupulous traders, in order to maximize profit, smuggle medical and other waste inside shipments, a direct threat to everyone’s health,” said a Shanghai Customs Bureau statement in April.

Despite a ban on imports of used tires, inspectors intercepted a 115-ton shipment of them in March, the bureau said. They were labeled “recycled rubber bands.”

ARCA Advanced Processing dismantles about 600,000 refrigerators a year and recovers 80 tons of plastic a week, plus copper, aluminum and other metals, according to Conners. He said those still are sold to traders who ship much of it to China, but the number who can satisfy Beijing’s requirements to separate and clean waste has plunged.

“There used to be guys who would come to our facility probably once a week to buy our plastic to take back to China,” he said. “That has gone down to where I have two vendors who still are able to do business to get it into China.”

In a reflection of more stringent controls, customs data show Chinese imports of waste plastic fell 11.3 percent in the first half of this year compared with a year earlier to 3.5 million tons after soaring over the past decade.

MBA Polymer’s facility in the southern city of Guangzhou, in the heart of China’s manufacturing industry, can process 40,000 tons of plastic a year, according to Biddle. It transforms waste into pellets to be used as raw material for new products. Buyers include Chinese manufacturers that work for companies such as computer maker Hewlett-Packard Co. and consumer electronics giant Philips NV.

Biddle said he welcomes Green Fence despite the disruption of imports because higher standards will favor more responsible companies.

“We’ve had to compete for raw materials with people who treat the materials not in ways that protect workers or the environment,” Biddle said by phone from California. “I see China moving toward encouraging companies like ours to develop.”

Conners said that by raising the cost of dealing with China, Green Fence might make it profitable for more Western companies to conduct the whole recycling process themselves. He said his company is looking at possible ventures to do that with partners.

“The advantage China had has been reduced considerably. That advantage was low-cost processing,” he said. “This is going to spur investment in the United States to process materials here.”

To read the original article:
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2013-10-03/china-recycling-cleanup-jolts-global-industry

Pack Expo’s Trashiest Girl Speaks Out!

Houston, we might be the problem!

Pack Expo – Las Vegas, my first major event within the “plastic industry” and it was a very eye-opening experience for me.

I went to this convention in a dress that was made completely out of plastic “trash.” I was very nervous to be in public dressed in what could be construed as a controversial outfit; however, the second I walked into the door I could tell that most people were going to be receptive and accepting of my “statement.”

I thoroughly enjoyed being at Pack Expo. I had a lot of fun walking through the aisles and meeting so many great people. I was often stopped and asked by many of the attendees to just take a picture with me and then was asked why I was wearing this particular outfit. Unfortunately, most people didn’t quite understand what was behind the sentiment of my plastic dress and they thought I was there to endorse recycling. My colleagues and I were able to take the opportunity to share with so many people that even though we think recycling is great, it’s not enough and that there are more options for being truly sustainable.

Something that I think the plastic industry would be more cognizant of, is recycling and sustainability. However, there weren’t even recycle bins at Pack Expo (well, there was actually only one recycle bin that I saw. There were, however, bins for garbage at practically every corner) This is definitely indicative of the sustainability problem we face. Most of the plastic discarded doesn’t even get recycled, it ends up in landfills. The entire Pack Expo is a reflection of the plastic packaging industry and yet they didn’t even offer a sustainable option for discarding plastic refuse from the show. Not to mention that on the final day when booths were being torn down, workers were just throwing away huge piles and handfuls of plastics into the garbage.

If we, the “experts” in plastic packaging, don’t come up with solutions for sustainability the problem is only going to get worse. For being an event encompassing the plastic packaging industry, I was very surprised to learn that people in this industry aren’t more concerned with the end of life of their plastic packaging. I thought for sure that the people in this business would realize that recycling just isn’t enough.

I wore a dress made out of plastic bags and packaging to make a point that represented the many items on my dress would not be recycled; but would ultimately end up in a landfill. What happens to all that plastic when it’s not recycled and gets discarded? Right now, nothing happens; it will stay buried in a landfill for thousands of years. Doesn’t it make sense to think that more should be done?

Unless you’re doing something with your packaging to make it more sustainable; you’re part of the problem!

A lot of US plastic isn’t actually being recycled since China put up its Green Fence

By Gwynn Guilford

For many environmentally conscious Americans, there’s a deep satisfaction to chucking anything and everything plasticky into the recycling bin—from shampoo bottles to butter tubs—the types of plastics in the plastic categories #3 through #7. Little do they know that, even if their local trash collector says it recycles that waste, they might as well be chucking those plastics in the trash bin.

“[Plastics] 3-7 are absolutely going to a landfill—[China’s] not taking that any more… because of Green Fence,” David Kaplan, CEO of Maine Plastics, a post-industrial recycler, tells Quartz. “This will continue until we can do it in the United States economically.”

The Green Fence went up…and it’s not coming down

Kaplan is referring to an initiative the Chinese government launched last year ostensibly to reduce pollution. Dubbed “Green Fence,” the policy bans the import of all but the cleanest, most tidily organized bales of reusable rubbish—and bars some types altogether.

The program was supposed to end in November of 2013. Now Chinese industry sources say that Green Fence is here to stay, reports American Metal Market, supporting what many in the US recycling business have suspected.

Before Green Fence, when American households and businesses recycled their plastic, for the most part what they were really doing was sending it for collection at US recycling companies. Some of that plastic trash would be shredded, granulated and packed into bales, while other types were simply bundled up as is. US recycling companies would then export it to China.

The many lives of plastic junk

Why would China import this? Plastic has many lives. That means that what to Americans is just a used Stonyfield Farms yogurt container is actually valuable raw material to Chinese manufacturers, which use the plastic resin from the processed tub to make everything from laptop cases to cosmetics. Chinese recyclers would import the bales of used plastic, sorting the valuable stuff from the chaff, cleaning it and breaking it down into plastic resin that can be remolded by manufacturers.

Recycled plastic resin is much cheaper than “prime”—i.e. new—plastic resin. The vast majority of what’s used in plastic packaging still comes from prime resin, though that can be supplemented by resin from recycled plastics to make it cheaper. Particularly for manufacturers in countries with a high degree of worry about the environment, being able to say that recycled plastics were used to make a product counts as valuable marketing as well.

The US may have Save the Earth campaigns to thank for the embrace of recycling. But more likely, it was made possibly by China’s emergence as a manufacturing powerhouse. The more China made, the more it needed used plastics, eventually sucking up around two-thirds of the US’s plastic scrap each year, worth several billion dollars.

Cheap plastic’s toll on China’s environment

But China’s cheap plastic came at a cost. Anything recyclers couldn’t use was heaped onto China’s growing massif of trash mountains. Worse still, the majority of recycling processors are small firms—often mom-and-pop operations—that pollute heavily but are hard to regulate.

As outrage among the Chinese public over the country’s noxious air and befouled waterways has surged in the last few years, the Chinese government has scurried to respond. Maine Plastic’s Kaplan thinks that’s what’s behind Green Fence.

“Because China got this bad press for pollution, the Chinese government says, ‘You know what? It’s because of importation of plastic scrap. The reason… that people can’t breathe in Beijing is plastics emissions,’” he tells Quartz. “That seems kind of arbitrary.”

Though China obviously has many more severe sources of pollution, Green Fence’s suspension of 247 import licenses for domestic recyclers will force smaller outfits out of business, making environmental regulation easier for the government.

Plus, China actually needs the US’s and other countries’ plastic in order to meet the demands of its manufacturers. Perhaps to take address that, the Chinese government announced plans for 100 pilot Recycling Economy Cities where it will invest in developing infrastructure for recycling.

Time for a US recycling renaissance?

Historically, higher labor costs and environmental safety standards made processing scrap into raw materials much more expensive in the US than in China. So the US never developed much capacity or technology to sort and process harder-to-break down plastics like #3 through #7.

Green Fence might be a chance to change that, says Mike Biddle, CEO of California-based recycling company MBA Polymers. “China’s Green Fence offers a real opportunity to the US government and recycling industry to step up its efforts on recycling and catalyze a strong domestic recycling market in the US,” Biddle said at a recent webinar on Green Fence.

Kathy Xuan, president of Parc Corp, one of the few US companies that processes post-industrial and post-consumer scrap, agrees that Green Fence will be good for the US. “Definitely it’s going to create a lot of job openings,” Xuan tells Quartz, adding that “every job China did can be done here, but it costs more.”

More demand from US manufacturers

China’s virtual monopoly on processing made it so US manufacturers imported raw materials mostly from China. But with Green Fence shutting down processors, supply of plastic resins is much scarcer.

Parc Corp’s Xuan says more US companies are now buying from her company. The lower supply of plastic resin will presumably help other US recyclers because it will raise prices enough to allow them to hire and invest in new capacity.

But it will take time

It might not be that simple, though.

Developing new recycling capacity in the US will “eventually” benefit the country, says Maine Plastics’ Kaplan. For the moment, though, Green Fence restrictions have blocked Chinese demand for his company’s clean, sorted post-industrial scrap. And while US and other countries’ manufacturers need that scrap as well, finding those markets takes time.

Plus, the proximity of Chinese manufacturers to the Chinese plastic processors kept transportation costs down. Green Fence has changed that. New markets for processing and sorting plastic scrap are growing in Indonesia, Malaysia and Vietnam. But “after [the plastic is] processed, they send it to China, which costs extra money, which means we get less for the material,” says Kaplan.

With Green Fence remaining in place, unless US manufacturing demand for plastic resins picks up a lot, margins are likely to remain uninviting for all but the biggest US recyclers.

What does that mean for consumers? Given the choice, the best answer’s probably “paper.”

For the full article visit: http://qz.com/122003/plastic-recycling-china-green-fence/

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

Looking Beyond the Borders for Plastic Pollution Solutions

Plastics rock! In a brief moment, if you focus on the role of plastic in our lives, it’s incredible all the applications we use it to our benefit. Unfortunately, the end-of-life for most plastic is hundreds of years away, if not longer, a fundamental problem. Over the course of the last few years I’ve had the privilege of playing a role in the Sustainability efforts of numerous producers of plastic. I’ve heard about their attempts at previous technologies, their struggles of processing and performance, the regulatory quagmire they face, what they’re trying to hang their hat on now and everything under the sun and including the sun.

During this time, I’ve also been privy to some remarkable advancement in technologies and I’m amazed at the innovations that are available today as well as what is on the horizon. It’s that focus on what tomorrow brings that truly provides a synergistic sustainable solution for a company. It’s about implementing a solution that understands that plastic, and the issue of plastic waste, is not an island unto itself. We must look beyond the borders to see the true possibilities, the interaction of multiple elements and cooperative action. It’s why ENSO applauds the efforts and recent announcement by NatureWorks, for recognizing the possibilities beyond its current technology. The silver bullet may not exist today, but with concerted efforts, we can move closer and closer to the goal. The value proposition of methane capturing is far beyond any of its counterparts and it is increasingly being recognized as a more logical and fundamentally sound platform to adopt.

Methane, despite the perceived negative connotations, is one of our most inexpensive and cleanest energy resources. This naturally produced gas can be used either in combustion engines or for conversion to electricity. To include the possibility of harnessing methane for plastic production would be a huge game changer. It is why current technologies such as ENSO RESTORE®, which proves to accelerate the natural biodegradation process in landfill environments, are being sought after. Many initiatives being touted today are simply incapable of proportionally meeting the increased production rate of plastic. What may appear to be “green” in theory essentially remains inadequate at meeting the greater objective of a cleaner planet. It is why ENSO RESTORE® provides a significantly more dynamic solution to stand behind when it comes to adopting technologies that support sustainability goals. Beyond bans and regulations, the objective is to provide a clear end-of-life solution in any plastic application (PET, HDPE, LDPE, PE, PP, EVA, PS, nitrile, rubber or latex); otherwise, we’re merely offering lip service in addressing the plastic waste in our environment.

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.

Manufacturers Beware!

Have you ever thought about where your plastic garbage goes?

Shopping for items packaged in plastic may end up costing you more in the long run; that is, if you discard the packaging incorrectly. The same could be true for plastic manufacturers if California passes their latest bill (Assembly Bill 521) on “extended producer responsibility”.

Right now; in San Francisco, California it is against the law to not recycle your trash. That’s right…you; as a law abiding citizen must separate all of your garbage, recyclables, and compostable items. To ensure that all citizens are complying with this law, trash auditors check garbage bins the night before it is scheduled for pickup. If you do not comply after several warnings, the non-complying residents will receive fines and/or have to take educational classes on recycling.

Taking this a step further, California is now working towards making plastic manufacturers responsible for the end of life of their product; ultimately, charging hefty fines for material that is not disposed of properly. (This, after recently making the word biodegradable illegal on labeling)

So who is responsible for all of this plastic pollution that is littering our oceans and filling our landfills? Is it the consumer? Is it the plastic manufacturer? Is it the recycling industry? (Who happens to discard more plastic than it recycles.) California may think they are doing the right thing by penalizing those who are in the path of plastic – from beginning to end – but they’re not supporting or encouraging better solutions…so who’s fault is it, really?

Despite whose responsibility this may be; it leads to a very important question…”Why are we not producing plastic that is biodegradable or even marine degradable? And, (ok, two questions) if there is a solution, why, as consumers and manufacturers, are we not jumping on that solution?”

I think that if there is a solution to this plastic pollution problem and a plastic manufacturer is using a product that is proven to be biodegradable and/or marine degradable, they are showing their end-of-life responsibility and it should be encouraged and rewarded amongst those companies; as well as, consumers who use such a product.

Does such a product exist?

Yes!

ENSO Plastics has created an additive, that when added to the plastic manufacturing process will cause the plastic to become biodegradable; as well as, marine degradable. There are two customizable blends that offer many options to manufacturers – ENSO RESTORE and ENSO RENEW.

This is the solution California needs to recognize, before they start penalizing all of their citizens and plastic manufacturers. California may want to make the people responsible, but I think the state needs to be responsible by allowing new technology and better options for their residents and local commerce.

Wake up California! The solution is staring you in the face!

Should Consumers Be Paid for Their Valuable Recycable Materials?

How to improve recycling rates is a topic that I have thought about over the years. There is much debate within the recycling community on how to do this. After all we have been recycling here in the U.S. for over 30 years and yet we recycle less than 8% of all plastics. If we look at specific segments of plastic materials we have a higher percentage rate in the 20’s. Still if you had a choice of a 8% verse a 90+% success rate of handling plastics which would you choose? The obvious answer is a solution in the 90+%. This is the approach ENSO has taken with developing our biodegradable additive. Why not have the best of both worlds – recyclability and biodegradability? The paper industry has been doing it for decades; recycling a material that is also biodegradable.

Some recyclers would have you believe that we need to desperately protect the 8% and by doing so will result in higher collection rates. The truth is that increasing collection rates and improving recycling is a complex problem and involves all of us to work together to achieve. It involves communities working towards the common goal. A great example is aluminum recycling. When I was a kid many people would collect soda can and hand them in to make money (incentive). People had an incentive to take the time to collect and bring in aluminum cans to exchange for money.

Is the day coming when recyclers will pay consumers for their recyclable materials? Some recycling programs such as Greenoplis, … have already taken this approach and have seen some success. Would consumers become more incentivized to help in the process of recycling? Would it change our perception of plastic packaging from being more disposable (trash) and more valuable? I think so, and I think that until we incentivize consumers and change perceptions of the value we place on plastics, the old method to motivate consumers to recycling through the “feel-good” or “guilt” response will never result in high recycle rates.

I’ve often thought about what it would look like if retailers such as Wal-Mart opened recycling facilities right in their stores. Where consumers would return all plastic packaging of products sold in the store. As an incentive Wal-Mart could offer discounts or other value added benefits to consumers to get them to bring back plastic and other types of packaging materials to be recycled. An influential company like Wal-Mart could then require companies to use specific types of packaging, possibly eliminating packaging that is more challenging to recycle. There are many ways that this type of program could benefit recycling, giving companies and brands that sell products within the Wal-Mart stores could be provided incentives to use the recycled material or reuse the packaging again and again.

If recyclers really want to get serious about protecting their business, stop squabbling over the little things and focus on the bigger goal – MORE, MORE, MORE!!! More than 90% of your potential revenues are going into landfills; use some of that effort to figure out how to get it!!

Update: Monday May 20th, 2013

I ran across an editorial today in Waste and Recycling News titled, “Editorial: Big Brother in San Francisco?” This deeply disturbing article outlines what the city of San Francisco is doing to enforce its citizens to better sort waste material. The city has hired auditors to go through trash cans to make sure that residence are properly sorting their waste – green bin material in green bin, recycle in the recycle bin and so forth. For those residents that don’t comply or don’t quite sort their waste correctly the auditors are responsible to notify resident of their mistake and for those who regularly don’t get it right there will be fines issued and or educational classes to attend.

My earlier blog discussed the idea of incentivizing its citizens as a method to help improve recycling and waste management processes. In other words how do we better motives people to get involved in this issue and improve recycling. Although our freedoms are slipping quickly, I still believe we are a free people and should bring people together to solve our problems. San Francisco is an example of the exact opposite approach; create laws and to ensure everyone complies create a policing force that levies fines to those not in compliance until all of those citizens do comply. This sounds like pages taken right from an George Orwell novel although its not from a book, its real…

http://www.wasterecyclingnews.com/article/20130520/OPINION/130529996/editorial-big-brother-in-san-francisco

http://www.wasterecyclingnews.com/article/20130520/NEWS02/130529999/whos-that-rifling-in-the-trash-san-franciscos-cart-inspectors?utm_campaign=daily_newsletter&utm_medium=daily_email&utm_source=daily_20130520&utm_content=article1

Waste Wise: Packing It In

Consider biodegradeable plastic packaging. It’s been touted as a good thing: If the material cannot be or is not recycled or re-used then it has the added benefit of degrading naturally once composted or landfilled. It seems product manufacturers, in an effort to be more sustainable, have focused on making plastic containers and packaging as highly degradable as possible, presumably based on the assumption that the more quickly it breaks down the more environmentally friendly it is.

On the surface, this makes sense. The more quickly something breaks down, the more quickly it goes away. But there is a flaw in this logic that suggests a disconnect between the manufacturers and their understanding of what happens to the materials upon disposal.

If biodegradable materials are composted, speedy biodegradation is a good thing, yielding a faster conversion time from waste to soil amendment. The problem is only 8 percent of U.S. municipal solid waste is composted. Of that amount, the vast majority of composted materials are yard trimmings and food waste, not biodegradable packaging materials.

Given this, where do most of the packaging materials go? While most paper packaging is recycled, nearly 85 percent of plastic packaging and containers (including the biodegradable kind) wind up in a landfill (a small percentage goes to waste-to-energy facilities).

So if it goes to a landfill, biodegradability is a good thing, right? Not necessarily. Results from a lifecycle analysis by N.C. State University have found that landfilled biodegradable plastics may not be as good for the environment as originally thought. Recall that when biodegradable plastics degrade in a landfill, microbes breakdown the material, converting it to either carbon dioxide or methane, both of which are greenhouse gases. Yet methane is 25 times more potent as a greenhouse gas compared to carbon dioxide, which means that if the methane generated from a landfill is not captured and utilized, then the biodegradable materials can do more harm than good.

N.C. State researchers Mort Barlaz, Ph.D., and Ph.D. candidate Jim Levis (who is supported via a Francois Fiessinger scholarship from the Environmental Research and Education Foundation) found that because biodegradable plastics were designed to break down as fast as possible, those placed in a landfill degraded too quickly to be sufficiently captured and utilized. This means that although the intent of the manufacturers is noble, the facts surrounding how packaging waste is currently managed and where it goes means that biodegradable packaging can actually be more harmful for the environment. So do we retreat to non-biodegradable plastics? Not likely.

There are two possible solutions. On the disposal side, the N.C. State study suggests that landfill gas collection systems put in place earlier go a long way toward capturing the methane released from rapidly degrading materials such as biodegradable plastics. There are logitistical challenges in applying this to every situation.

A second and perhaps more plausible solution lies further up the supply chain. If the biodegradable materials were designed to degrade more slowly, say on the order of years versus months, then this would ensure that materials ending up in a landfill would generate methane that is sure to be captured and beneficially utilized. Given the amount of plastic that still ends up in a landfill, the larger point is that product manufacturers should take the time to really understand where their materials end up and how this truly impacts sustainability, while at the same time evaluating how policy and human behavior can be modified to shift the scenario to one where the higher recovery of these materials can be achieved.

“Is Biodegradability a Desirable Attribute for Discarded Solid Waste? Perspectives from a National Landfill Greenhouse Gas Inventory Model” by James Levis and Morton Barlaz has been published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology. More information can also be obtained by visiting www.erefdn.org.

Bryan Staley

Bryan Staley, P.E., is president of the Environmental Research and Education Foundation, a non-profit foundation that funds and directs scientific research and educational initiatives to benefit…