Tag Archives: sustainability

Finding Circularity with Single Cycle Packaging

Let’s look at the issue of plastic waste and how we can use the circular economic model to resolve some of the problems that we face, that’s ultimately spilling into our environment. Some 300 million tons of plastic is manufactured globally each year and “plastic packaging” accounts for about 78 million tons of it. That’s 172 billion pounds of non-reusable, non-recyclable and unequivocally unaccounted for plastic waste. This includes items such as flexible packaging, films, foamed material, small items, contaminated material, complex/multi-layer applications and anything colored, where recycling and reusability are practically non-existent. These are single use, single cycle, applications. Also, there’s unanimous agreement that the vast majority of all these applications are destined for a landfill. And these are not the demonized landfills from days gone by; I’m talking about today’s modern landfills that are now energy generating power plants.

This discussion is not for the consumer, this is for the difference makers, the sustainability managers, the leaders that can make a difference. They’re the companies that, according to Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), are to be held accountable for the post-consumer aspect of its products and packaging. I’m talking about companies like Kraft, Coca-Cola, Nestle, PepsiCo, P&G, General Mills, Johnson & Johnson, Kellogg, Mars, Unilever and all the brands under them.

companies

We all know, or the data tells us, that this is the single most common disposal method of all this material. It should also be known that waste-to-energy has proven to be one of our greatest resources for alternative energy. Whether it’s an anaerobic digester, a bioreactor or today’s modern landfills, most plastic packaging is ultimately ending-up in a unique anaerobic environment that is controlling and converting biogas into clean energy. Some of these companies utilize the energy from landfills, yet they haven’t put the pieces together to figure out that the very trash that their products produce could be the feedstock for the alternative energy resource they’re already harnessing. Too often, the end-of-life aspect is ignored or swept under the rug with theoretical contemplations about disposal methods that simply don’t exist and senseless confusion.

Yet, nearly all 50 states include landfill gas-to-energy as part of their green energy portfolios. It’s recognized by the United Nations, the EPA, as well as dozens of Fortune 500 companies and government organizations that all utilize energy from landfills. However, the dots just aren’t being connected. I recently asked the Director of Sustainability for one of these 10 companies about this topic and they honestly said that they’ve never heard of such a thing and can’t imagine that we’ll ever get our energy from slowly decomposing waste. Yet, three years ago this same company won top honors by the EPA as one of the largest on-site green power generators because of its use of Landfill Gas-to-Energy (LGE) to power its manufacturing facilities! Seriously, why the disconnect between what companies are doing and what companies should and could be doing to think more circular? Imagine if you will, this same company implementing landfill biodegradable packaging and then using the energy from landfill gas. This is true circular economy thinking, especially when energy needs will increase 50% in the next couple decades. Without requiring any change to the infrastructures in place today and without modifying consumer behavior, these single use applications can be designed to cycle at a higher level.

I’ve heard the idea that plastics should be made NOT to biodegrade in a landfill because one day we might want to mine for this material. This is completely asinine and assumes that we’ll have a need to mine for this material within the next couple hundred years. The reason being, plastic will eventually biodegrade, we just won’t be able to capture the gases produced if we wait too long. Instead, if these applications were designed to biodegrade within the managed timeframe of these anaerobic environments, for every million pounds of plastic waste that enters a LGE facility, it offers the equivalence of over 422,000 pounds of coal, 52,000 gallons of gasoline and more than 1100 barrels of oil, which is used to power homes and factories, as well as fueling vehicles!

The technology is readily available to make most any polymer application anaerobically biodegradable, or commonly referred to as Landfill Biodegradable. The technology does not change any processing parameters, there’s no change in any performance characteristics, and it’s not expensive. In fact, for about the price of a Tall Cappuccino, tens of thousands of Starbucks Coffee cups can be designed to biodegrade in a landfill. These multi-layer applications are not being reused or recycled, but they are going to a landfill. So what gives, is it because of the misguided concept that landfills are bad? Perhaps it’s time to reevaluate the integral role of this disposal method that rely so heavily on; a lot has changed since the 80’s. In fact, you could say that we’re now diverting 75% of all MSW away from landfills, because the type of landfills that are being vilified are becoming obsolete – quickly.

A single loop system for handling our plastic waste is impractical, circularity does not mean singularity, there’s too much at stake, too much potential, and the infrastructure is already in place so there’s no need to implement Cass Sunstein’s “nudging” tactics to change consumer behavior. Besides, the fact that none of this material can/will be recycled is not because of consumer behavior, its feasibility and market demand, and it’s just not there. A company wanting to take accountability for its packaging needs to answer one candid question: What is the common disposal method of the application? Then, do what can be done to take advantage of this fact and understand the value in having our waste integrate into our waste infrastructures instead of working against it. The facts, the science and all the data, prove that there’s an enormous opportunity being overlooked. I believe the circular economic model can work for plastics, but not if it’s simply a rebranding of the last 40+ years of rhetoric.

Sustainability with Landfilling

When considering landfills from a sustainability perspective, often the most difficult thing is to step back from the negative connotations of landfills. Too often, sustainability managers get caught in the trend of “zero landfill” because it is great marketing and it sounds like it would be more environmental. We must overcome the negative perception of landfills so we can evaluate them objectively.

The truth is always in the facts. Landfills are an important part of any sustainability strategy. Most all of the waste worldwide goes into landfills. Landfills can be the most environmentally and economically beneficial disposal options for certain items. Technology has completely changed landfills; they are not the same as they were prior to the 1980’s. And landfills are an important part of many municipal green energy initiatives.

The design and operation of landfills has completely changed over the past few decades. Landfills are now actively managed to avoid leachate absorption into the surrounding soil, to avoid air emissions and they are a valuable and consistent source of renewable energy. Modern landfills are by far the most inexpensive method to dispose of materials and they allow a means to provide economic and environmental value through the conversion of landfill gas to energy.

There is no doubt that most all plastics are disposed of in landfills. Even after 40 years of efforts to divert plastics from landfills, we still landfill over 90% of plastics. Many companies’ products and packaging will have closer to 100% landfill disposal. History has shown that we will continue to landfill plastics for a very long time and attempts to divert plastics from landfills usually causes more damage to the environment and economy than any benefit it may provide. Because of this, we must understand how to create sustainability with landfilling of plastics.

Plastics in the landfill should biodegrade during the managed life of the landfill, 2-50 years. When compostable plastics enter a landfill many will biodegrade too rapidly and the methane is released into the atmosphere and most traditional plastics biodegrade over hundreds of years meaning, again, the methane goes into the atmosphere. We must use plastics that biodegrade during the 2-50 year managed time of a landfill so the methane can be managed, collected and converted to clean energy. Once collected, the methane provides energy, fuel, and reduces the methane’s global warming effects.

Ultimately, we cannot disregard landfilling because plastics are, and will continue to be, discarded into landfills. Instead, we must design plastics that provide value in the landfill. In this way, we can create sustainability platforms that are more realistic and beneficial.

For more details, check out the Sustainability Managers Complete Guide to Plastics: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0175AQ24K

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.

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

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

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

Get green before it gets you, speaker advises

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

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

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

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

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

“You have to be the brain trust on this,” he said. “You don’t want someone else to do it for you. You need to be the solution and help your customers find ways to change their carbon footprint up and down the value chain. You have to compete or you will fall behind.”

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

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

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

In addition, retailers are forcing changes, Winston said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

“You need to look downstream to your customers and upstream to your suppliers” to determine where the biggest impact can occur, said Winston. “You don’t want to make the wrong investments” and spend money in one area when dollars spent elsewhere can have a greater effect.

It also means thinking creatively, he said.

For example:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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!

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.

Talking Green with the “Go Green Guy” Jeff Davis

ENSO Plastics recently had the opportunity to talk about some green topics with the “Go Green Guy”, Jeff Davis from Go Green America TV . As someone who is out there trying to educate and encourage people to live, and go green, we wanted to reach out to Jeff and see what his thoughts were on some topics that are relevant right now in our industry and field. ENSO Plastics shares a common goal with people like Jeff in that we want people to make the best decisions when it comes to environmental choices. We started off by just learning a little bit more about how Jeff got started in the “Go Green” movement:

Q: There are a lot of different reasons people get into the “Green Movement”, what motivated you to start your program,”Go Green America TV“?

Jeff: I was interested in finding some information for myself and my family. When I started searching for info on Green Living it just seemed so overwhelming. I thought there must be a better way to spread the word. So I started tweeting and blogging and before you know it “Go Green America TV” was born.

Q: That’s really great that something that started off as a personal goal turned into a much larger scale project of educating and providing information to others as to how they can go green as well. Now that your there, what is your goal with Go Green America? If there was something you could specifically achieve or a moment that would occur where you would sit back and say, “Man I’ve done it!”, what would that moment be or look like?

Jeff: My ultimate goal is to get “Go Green America TV” on television where I could reach millions. Daily I get interesting feedback from readers about how they enjoy what I am doing, for me that is it, knowing that I can effect people just by sharing what I learn, passing along information in such a way that it may just change they way people live their lives. I am not sure what the defining moment would be, but the little moments along the way will keep me going.

Q: Well we hope that you can achieve that goal! In regards to being on TV or how you run your program right now, you bring a lot of information to the table with your site and TV Channel, what is the biggest hurdle in trying to educate the public about green topics? What is the best way to go about getting the information to people?

Jeff: I think the biggest hurdle is finding an approach that people will actually take the time to listen to. There is so much Green washing out there that people are a little put off by the whole Green Living movement. I try to experience it with them, learn together and not be too much in your face. I want people to know that even the littlest things that we all do, make a difference.

I feel the best way to reach people is with video and I am in the process of finally getting that aspect of GGATV going.

Q: It is tough with the amount of Green Washing that has occurred, to keep people in the game and not be put off. One item of interest is plastic, and plastic usage is always a big deal, in packaging and with recycling, what is your overall impression of the environmental impact of plastics?

Jeff: It (plastic) has been a part of our lives for such a long time now it is difficult to just get rid of it. Recycling seems to be a key component in dealing with plastic but I still feel that the ultimate goal would be to reduce it’s use as much as possible. The trash factor, the landfill factor, the non biodegradable factor they all are a part of it, but sometimes we forget that plastics are petroleum based, love to see petroleum use cut when ever possible.

Q: There are a lot of factors involved in plastics, and specifically with plastic right now there is a lot of attention on plastic bags, specifically single use plastic bags, what is your take on it, what is the real solution, or is there one?

Jeff: I like the ban myself. I am not sure if it is the solution but I like it. Of all the single use items out there the plastic bag is the most widely used, the one that seems to get attention because it is easy to educate people on using reusable bags. People do tend to reuse plastic bags, but just for trash and they still end up in the trash can, they are one of the least likely items to be recycled.

Q: I agree with you in that I am also not sure it is the solution. It will be some time before we learn what kind of positive or negative impact the bag bans have. When you talk about ideas like using reusable bags, do you think we are we doing enough as people to go green? Even you personally do you feel there is always more and more you can do to be green but find difficulty in achieving all those goals?

Jeff: Are we doing enough? As long as we can get everyone to at least be conscious of there actions, hopefully it will be a cause and effect where they will make changes on there own. I think education is key, the more we understand why to live Green, the more people will make an effort. I myself know that I could always do more and I am striving to do so. It is a journey one step at a time, we just need to get as many people to start that journey as possible and the small steps will really make a difference

Q: On a global level there is a push to “Go Green”, even the Olympics this time around is trying to be as green as possible, and there is a lot of pressure for companies and brands to have “Green Initiatives”. From a global perspective what countries are really taking a lead with this, is the US in the lead?

Jeff: Globally I think that we are beginners when it comes to the environment. We’ve been the Global leaders in convenience, which is not a good thing. We have for the most part, become an unhealthy and somewhat lazy society. From what I can tell, England and many other European countries as well as Australia and Canada could teach us a lot about being environmentally responsible. I do think that we are finally catching on and hopefully catching up. We are finally educating people and a big part of that is just doing what we are doing right here, talking about it, sharing information, explaining why it is important.

We dropped the ball when Jimmy Carter tried to kick start the country down the right path and it wasn’t even called Green Living then. Solar panels, bio fuels, electric vehicles, we pushed them all aside and now we have to play catch up. I think we can do it!

I think we can too, and I think you have touched on something very important here. What really catches my attention here is when you said earlier, “the more we understand why to live Green, the more people will make an effort”. A lot of the time when I see a how to live green topic, blog or video it is simply that. It is at a high consumer level and sometimes it is effective and sometimes it is not. If though, we started focusing more on the “why” along with the “how” then I think more people would understand the importance of what it really means to “live” or “Go Green”.

Q: Thanks for your time Jeff, and we look forward to hearing from you in the future!

Jeff: It was a pleasure, thank you for taking the opportunity!

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

To learn more about Jeff Davis and his “Go Green America TV” make sure you visit his site, gogreenamericatv.com and follow Jeff on twitter !

Secrets of the Amazon – A solution for the Pacific Garbage Patch?

For decades we have known that the Amazon is home to more species than almost anywhere else on Earth. Amazon Rainforest constitutes the world’s largest “pharmacy” yielding thousands of previously unknown substances found no where else. Compounds from tropical flora relieve headaches, help treat glaucoma and provide muscle relaxants used during surgery. The Amazon Rainforest has also yielded guanine for the treatment of malaria and periwinkle for the treatment of leukemia. Given the rainforest’s teeming biological diversity, its value to humanity as a laboratory of natural phenomena and as a medical storehouse is priceless.

Recently, the “pharmeceutical” benefits of the Amazon have been expanded to the potential of healing the Earth from the plague of plastic waste. A group of Yale students discovered, quite by accident, a fungus that appears to be quite happy eating plastic in airless landfills. This fungus shows a voracious appetite for a very common group of plastics: polyurethane.

Human beings have only begun to catalog and name the creatures that live here. Home to thousands of varieties of flowering plants, the rainforest supports endless varieties of hummingbirds, butterflies and insects such a the rhinoceros beetle and the army ant. It is also home to the spider monkey, pink and gray dolphins, Amazon river otter, piranha, anaconda, jaguar, blue and yellow macaw, toucan, harpy eagle, fishing bat, tapir sloth, tarantula, Cayman crocodile, manatee, etc.

The Amazon Rainforest, the largest rainforest and richest ecosystem on earth, has stood inviolate for thousands if not millions of years since its creation. The profusion and variety of life forms present in the rainforest and its critical role in supplying the world with air has resulted in its being called the “Heart and Lungs” of the Planet. Indeed, the majority of the world’s oxygen is supplied by its dense foliage and teeming plant life which upon first inspection, seems boundless and indestructible.

A recent study by the Smithsonian Institution indicates that about 90% of all of the plant and animal species extant in the world today reside in the Amazon Rainforest and depend upon its complex ecology. As the greatest repository of nature’s treasures and most significant source of air, the Amazon Rainforest is crucial to the survival of all life on the planet and to human beings’ understanding of their place in the web of life. In the words of Guatama Buddha, “The forest is a peculiar organism of unlimited kindness and benevolence that makes no demands for its sustenance and extends generously, the products of its life and activity. It affords protection to all living beings.”

Before the arrival of Europeans and up to the third decade of this century, the Amazon Rainforest covered nearly 45 million acres in what is today Brazil, parts of Venezuela, Colombia, Peru and Ecuador. Brazil has the greatest amount of tropical forest in the world. It is also experiencing the worse losses: between twelve million and twenty two million acres a year, according to the World Resources Institute.

Brazil’s rainforest is being decimated by a vast army of homesteaders, farmers, ranchers and corporate interests that include large scale mining and intensive farming. Drilling and mining leave scars, and farmers find that raising crops quickly exhausts the thin soil of cleared forest land. Many farmers merely abandon their plots and clear new ones. The cultivation of crop production leaves rivers polluted with chemicals. The extraction of gold and other metals fouls waterways with mercury and other toxins used in processing.

Today, scarcely twenty years since the intensification of the development of the rainforest, it has shrunk to 88% of its original size. It is estimated that each second, an area the size of a football field is destroyed, adding to the daily toll of approximately fifty thousand acres. In one year, an area the size of Italy is decimated and made uninhabitable to nearly all forms of life. Already thousands of plant and animal species about whom little was known have been irrevocably lost to the bulldozer, the chain saw and to the slash and burn methods employed by regional farmers, ranchers and miners.

Although its arboreal canopy reaches hundreds of feet into the air, the rainforest and its groves of giant trees are in fact rooted in very shallow soil and exist in a fragile balance. The rainforest experiences an abbreviated life cycle in which the creation of top soil is bypassed through the efficient decomposing activities of tropical bacteria and fungi. Rather than collecting in the soil, the nutrients are absorbed by the trees. A layer of nutrient-poor soil in the rainforest is generally less than four inches deep. Unlike other forests around the world, the rainforest once disturbed, cannot renew itself, remaining instead a barren sandy wasteland subject to erosion.

At the current rate of destruction, parts of the Amazon promise to turn into great stretches of desert within our lifetime. The repercussions of this activity are global. As the rainforest gets smaller, it is less able to supply the world with much needed oxygen or to absorb as much carbon dioxide contributing to global warming and the greenhouse effect. The burning forest adds even more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere jeopardizing the stability of ecosystems worldwide.

Given the immense size of the Amazon Rainforest and it’s unimaginable bio-diversity, we have just begun to scratch the surface of the solutions residing within. If we can find cures for cancer, malaria, polyurethane waste and more; perhaps it holds the ability to cure the incomprehensible problem we face today of plastic fragments choking our oceans? What other mysteries lie hidden within the green foliage and moist soil?