Posted by dbrooks on September 14, 2011
A recent article in the September 12 edition of The Wall Street Journal describes how several major California cities are leading the way for aggressive landfill-diversion goals.
The article, “The Urban Quest for ‘Zero Waste’” by David Perry of Oakland, Ca., describes how Los Angeles, San Diego and especially San Francisco now prevent up to 77 percent of municipal wastes from hitting landfills.
While critics claim that these goals are unrealistic, the article describes how inaction is often more expensive:
For cities with limiteed landfill space – and the higher fees that come with it – most zero-waste activities cost less than normal garbage disposal, says Gary Liss, a zero waste consultant who has helped about 20 cities for plans to reduce waste.”
Composting of mixed organics takes on an important role in major cities including Seattle, Austin and San Francisco. In fact, San Francisco was among the first US city to mandate food composting in 2009 and currently collects about 600 tons per day of wet paper, food scraps and other certified compostable products.
Other West Coast communities, including Eugene, OR, have recently announced a large-scale food composting project involving food scraps, wet paper and other mixed organics that could help more than 3,200 tons of trash annually to be readily composted and avoid the landfill.
- gws -
Posted by dbrooks on August 23, 2011
One of the UK’s largest retailers, Tesco, recently announced it has ditched its ‘eco-friendly’ carrier bags after research revealed they may be more environmentally damaging than conventional plastic bags.
Perhaps this headline from London’s largest circulation daily newspaper, The Daily Mail, says it best:
Myth of ‘eco-friendly’ bags exposed as Tesco dumps ‘green’ carriers that may actually harm the environment
Why the loud ‘symphony’ of criticism? Actually, this move comes more than one year after a report by Britain’s DEFRA (UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs), which initially raised concerns about claims that ‘oxo-degradable’ bags would degrade to water, carbon dioxide and biomass in just 18 months.
A competing supermarket chain, the Co-operative, took similar action to drop ‘oxo’ degradable bags last year in the wake of the DEFRA report.
The 2010 DEFRA report concluded that degradability depends on where and under what conditions the bag ended up after use. In a landfill, an oxo biodegradable bag won’t degrade at all because there is no light or oxygen, and these materials also cause problems in recycling streams according to the European Plastics Recyclers Association. TESCO is merely the latest retailer to catch up to this reality.
According to an article published by the UK National Non-Food Crops Centre, Tesco commented:
“We took the decision to remove the biodegradable additive because we believed it contributed towards them becoming weaker (addressing customer concerns about the strength of our bags) and to help better promote their re-use and recycling at end of life. This decision was underpinned by a detailed review of the science, using external experts to help us understand the full life cycle environmental impacts of our carrier bags.”
Tesco also stated that as early as February 2011 it started to issue new carrier bags to its stores without the biodegradable additive, but with up to 15% recycled plastic.
- GWS -
Posted by dbrooks on July 22, 2011
In a recent issue (April 2011) of the American Chemical Society’s journal Environmental Science & Technology, authors Prasun K. Roy, Minna Hakkarainen, Indra K. Varma, and Ann-Christine Albertsson discuss the on-going fantasy and reality of “degradable plastics”.
An excerpt:
“Degradable polyethylene,” which is presently being promoted as an environmentally friendly alternative to the nondegradable counterpart, does not seem to meet this criterion.
This article also outlines important questions, particularly in terms of time scale of complete degradation, environmental fate of the polymer residues, and possible accumulation of toxins, the answers to which need to be established prior to accepting these polymers as environmentally benign alternatives to their nondegradable equivalents. It appears from the existing literature that our search for biodegradable polyethylene has not yet been realized.
It is valuable reading for anyone interested in understanding the pitfalls of seeking a quick-fix to complex environmental issues. You can order the article on degradable plastics here:
Posted by dbrooks on July 7, 2011
Responding to a recent article in the journal Environmental Science & Technology, Steven A. Mojo, Executive Director of the Biodegradable Products Institute (BPI), issued the following statement:
Biodegradable products are not major contributors to methane emissions from landfills, as claimed in the Environmental Science & Technology (ES&T) article.
A North Carolina State University study, published online in the May 27 issue of Environmental Science & Technology (ES&T), leaves the impression that “biobased biodegradable products” potentially generate large amounts of methane when they are landfilled. The Biodegradable Products Institute believes that the headlines and conclusions of this work are inappropriate.
There are two fallacies in the article’s arguments.
WAIT! There is more to read… read on »
Posted by dbrooks on October 28, 2010
Yesterday, the Federal Court of Australia ruled plastic bag company NuPak Australia has engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct related to environmental marketing claims for Goody-brand “degradable” bags.
The court heard the company had claimed its bags were biodegradable and compostable when this was not the case. The court was told its bags also contained a heavy metal in amounts that exceeded the maximum concentration under Australian standards.
NuPak has been ordered to publish corrective notices on its website, send a letter to each customer and contribute $10,000 towards the costs of the ACCC over the proceedings.
Following legal action by the Australia Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), Nupak Australia is Pty Ltd (‘Nupak’) has consented
to a declaration being made by the Federal Court of Australia that it contravened sections 52 and 53 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (the TPA)
by making false representations and engaging in misleading or deceptive conduct.
As part of the court action, Nupak has consented to a Court declaration that ‘Goody’ brand plastic bags supplied by Nupak did not biodegrade or disintegrate and contained a toxic or hazardous substance, and therefore were not complaint with the Australian Standard.
Nupak has given an undertaking to the Court to refrain from representing that ‘Goody’ brand plastics bags are biodegradable, compostable or
comply with the Australia Standard unless first receiving independent scientific testing that supports the claim.
Nupak has consented to orders that it publish corrective notices in The Advertiser (a daily newspaper from Adelaide, Australia) and also to an order to implement a Trade Practices Compliance and Education Training Program regarding its responsibilities and obligations under Australian law.
Nupak has paid a contribution towards the ACCC’s costs of instituting the proceedings.
In a written statement, the Biodegradable Products Institute commented:
“We are glad to see that manufacturer’s unsupported claims are recognized as misleading. We hope to see more of this in the future, in response to the growing number of these claims around the globe.
-gws-
