Image by Aeropause

Standing at the grocery store checkout, realizing you forgot your reusable shopping bags, or if you did remember them, you don’t have enough, you’re faced with the decision: paper or plastic? First, you’re momentarily overcome with pangs of guilt; second, the inner dialogue commences. You’re a deer in the headlights, frozen, afraid to make a move.

There’s a lot of confusion surrounding the Great Bag Debate, much of it perpetuated by misinformation, common assumptions, and a whole lot of greenwashing. For years, it was thought that the better choice for the environment was paper, but it turns out that paper and plastic bags are just about equal in pros and cons. They both use resources, cause pollution, and generate many tons of waste that more often than not, ends up in the landfill.

To further complicate the conundrum, there is more than just paper and plastic to consider these days; plastic alternatives, including corn-based PLA, and landfill biodegradable plastics are commonly being used in packaging. As eco-conscious consumers, which bag do we choose, and how can feel good about our choice?

The Resources and Energy Pitfall

Myth #1: Paper is made from a renewable resource, so it must have a lower impact.

The first part of this statement is true, but in fact, paper production deals a double blow when it comes to climate change and environmental impact. First, forests are cut down, removing trees that absorb greenhouse gases and convert it into oxygen (not to mention the other impacts on wildlife and ecosystems in general); in 1999, more than 14 million trees were cut down to produce the 10 billion paper bags consumed in the U.S. alone. Second, manufacturing paper from pulp takes a tremendous amount of energy, and because paper is relatively heavy, it takes a lot of fuel to transport the finished product.

How does this compare with the plastics? Of course, there are impacts associated with the extraction of petroleum (just look at the Gulf), but it turns out that the actual production of plastic bags releases about 92% fewer emissions into the atmosphere than paper bag production, and requires about Plastic bags also weigh significantly less than paper, requiring less fuel to get them from point A to point B.

What About Waste

Myth #2: Paper breaks down in the landfill faster than plastic, so it must be the better choice.

Image by greenismyfavoritecolor.net

It turns out that under standard landfill conditions, paper does not degrade any faster than plastic. Even newspaper can take years to break down; newspapers excavated from one New York landfill were mostly intact after 50 years, and another in Arizona was still readable after 35 years. Indeed, the largest percentage of solid waste in U.S. landfills comes from paper and paperboard products, about 31%.

On the other hand, the new generation of plastics somewhat complicate this debate. PLA, or corn-based, plastics commonly used in disposable cutlery, packaging, and plastic grocery bags is compostable, but only among the perfect conditions found in a commercial composting facility, NOT in the landfill where  most plastic ends up, or even in the backyard compost pile.

Biodegradable plastics, like ENSO’s products, however, do break down in the anaerobic landfill environment in a short amount of time (an average of five years), leaving behind only methane, carbon dioxide, and biomass. The use of an additive in standard plastic production also makes it a cost-effective solution. In terms of the plastic waste problem, the biodegradables currently hold the most promise.

Next week, in Part II, we’ll take a look at the aspects of pollution and recycling, and see how the contenders hold up.

Share this:

Maybe you’ve heard the term “landfill gas.” Methane and landfill gas are not one and the same, although methane does account for roughly 40 to 60 percent of landfill gas on average; the remaining percentage is a mix of carbon dioxide and small amounts of various other elements.

Methane has its pros and cons. At room temperature and standard pressure, it’s non-toxic and odorless; however, it can be highly flammable as well as an asphyxiant, meaning it displaces all the oxygen in an enclosed space and could cause a person in the room to suffocate. Methane is also known to accelerate the breakdown of the ozone layer and contribute to global warming. And according to the Environmental Protection Agency, it can remain in the atmosphere for nine to 15 years.

But municipalities that have the means to safely harness the gases coming off landfills can put methane to work for them in a positive way. When you compare methane to the other hydrocarbon fuels, also known as fossil fuels (for example, coal and petroleum), methane produces less carbon dioxide when burned, leading many to argue it’s a greener alternative when it comes to heating homes, powering stoves or running our cars. Methane can also be converted to electricity right on-site at a landfill, providing cities with a relatively convenient and cost-effective way to add power to its electrical grid.

This is how it works: Garbage arrives at a landfill, where it’s compounded and left to decompose (1). As the microbes eat away at organic matter and other biodegradable objects, ENSO Bottles included, the process creates landfill gases (2) that enter underground pipes (3). The pipes transport these gases (4) to a facility where any and all harmful contaminants, such as mercury or sulfur, can be filtered out and neutralized. After the methane is isolated, it can be pumped into an engine (5), which powers a generator, which creates electricity (6). Cities that employ this method can add the power generated by their landfills right into their power supply grid. What city wouldn’t want such an efficient system in place?

According to the EPA, of the approximately 2,300 currently operating (or recently closed) municipal solid waste landfills in the U.S., more than 490 have wised up and utilize landfill gas energy projects — that’s up from the 395 programs that were in place at the end of 2005. And, the EPA has identified at least 515 additional landfills that would be good candidates, which would be capable of producing enough electricity to power more than 665,000 additional homes in the U.S.

Ideally, we would live in a culture of zero waste, where every product manufactured is reused, recycled or reclaimed, but the reality is, landfills are very much a part of our society and won’t be going away any time soon. So one thing we can focus on right now is supporting biodegradable products, such as the plastic bottles ENSO makes, as well as projects that reclaim energy from landfill methane in order to ensure that what we toss out as garbage will live on to heat our homes, power our vehicles and make our waste management system just that much greener.

Share this:

California’s governor vetoed SB-1454 despite its intent to clarify misleading labeling

The recent demise in California of legislative bill SB-1454 took some by surprise. This cleverly written piece of legislation was designed supposedly to clarify misleading labeling claims and would prevent the sale of plastics in California whose packaging is labeled not only biodegradable but also compostable. 

After an extensive push to get this legislation through the California Legislature, the backers of SB-1454 succeeded and it landed on Governor Schwarzenegger’s desk. Surely a slam dunk, yes? 

The answer is no. The governor vetoed the bill, saying it was too “expansive” and that “unforeseen consequences could result from such a vast expansion” of existing law. 

In truth, the vetoing of this bill was a win for both consumers and manufacturers. The backers of the bill – Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland, two megacorporations deeply involved in the growth and exportation of corn and grain feed – are part of the PLA industry. With their support, this seemingly positive bill was in fact a one-sided piece of legislation. While appearing to clarify any misleading or deceptive labeling practices, it in fact would have banned the use of the word “biodegradable” altogether, stating that this was in itself a deceptive claim for plastic products because supposedly plastic does not biodegrade.

In fact, there is scientific validation that it is truly biodegradable. 

Traditional plastic bottles will last for a thousand years in landfills

The drafters of this bill cleverly narrowed its focus, completely excluding biodegradation. Instead, SB-1454 would have supported “industrial compostable” ONLY plastic. 

The problem with this is this type of plastic, unless actually processed through an industrial composting system, will last for upwards of a thousand years in our landfills. 

After meetings with the staff of California’s governor to explain the true facts about biodegradation and what SB-1454 would in fact exclude, the governor wisely chose to veto the misleading piece of legislation that would itself have potentially created more problems than it would have solved. 

Kudos to Governor Schwarzenegger for recognizing the importance of having regulations that provide real and viable recycling alternatives and not don’t merely benefit one lobby group.

Share this:

The book titled JUNK SCIENCE: How Politicians, Corporations, and Other Hucksters Betray Us by Dr. Dan Agin was very interesting book. Dr. Agin has a Ph.D. in biological psychology and thirty years of laboratory-research experience in neurobiology and is an associate professor emeritus of molecular genetics and cell biology at the University of Chicago.

I must admit when I picked up this book I was a bit put off by the premise of this book. Junk Science, Agin argues is not “bad science” or weak science, but is the socially destructive and often fatal twisting of science by special interests, usually associated with big money. He points out that those in power are usually aware of the importance of science to the retention of power.

In general, any political group or movement that twists science with bias in order to support a particular agenda is producing “junk science”, even if the twisting is subtle rather than blatant. The public has experienced the results of “junk science” by a few of those associated within the PLA industry who make false and misleading claims and have not backed up their own claims through sound scientific data. This only results in creating more confusion for the public and a lack of trust for the environmental benefit biodegradable plastic solutions can bring for our planet. Personally it has been an eye opener for me to see key individuals from the science community which are well respected in their field using their position to misinform the public with incorrect data about the microbiology of biodegradable plastics.

Dr. Agin covers a number of interesting topics within the book such as obesity, medicine, cloning, global warming, stem cell research and many other topics which are at the forefront of controversial discussions. He points out that “it’s usually easy for a researcher of high status, an authority figure, to fabricate and publish over an extended period of time, since the majority of researchers will automatically assume the work is legitimate.” This statement lead me to wonder how much misinformation is being presented to the public from big business organizations in order to promote an agenda? This exact question is what lead ENSO Bottles to openly present and offer to the public our biodegradation and recyclability testing of our biodegradable PET bottles. There are companies making claims about biodegradable, compostable and degradable plastics without providing any scientific data to support these claims. Others are using industry specific non-profit organizations to certify their products as compostable and also do not provide any such data to support the certification. As an environmental company we believe transparency is important and as such have taken the higher road with posting our data and ask the same for the entire biodegradable plastics industry, let’s all do away with “Junk Science” and actually make a positive difference for the planet.

A significant correlation that Dr. Agin addresses is “big money” and the science that supports “big money”. “Why are some forms of twisted science readily accepted by the public and other brushed aside?”, this is a question that Dr. Agin addresses in the book with a surprising and simple answer; we have a tendency to believe whatever we view as authority tells us. This results in organizations using power and positions of authority to push agendas through the use of false information which is at the very best “junk science” and at the worst downright criminal.

By Danny Clark
ENSO Bottles, LLC
Web: http://www.ensobottles.com

Share this:

The Ecology of microbes to one another and their surroundings is extraordinary with respect to the diversity of chemical and physical conditions that can be tolerated. Microbes thrive in extreme environments with regards to temperatures, high concentrations of salts and sugars, relative acidity, and with or without the presence of oxygen.

I’ve had a few conversation and read comments by scientists, individuals and organizations who promote the PLA industry claiming that biodegradation does not happen in landfill environments. One person I met while attending NPE2009 in Chicago was so bold as to make the statement that biodegradation does not happen anaerobically. I thought this was very interesting as the process for producing lactic acid (which is a required process for PLA – Polylactic Acid) is through the fermentation of corn starch. Fermentation is the biological process in which sugars and starches are converted into cellular energy in anaerobic conditions (a.k.a. anaerobic biodegradation). In fact, found on the BPI (Biodegradable Products Institute) website is an explanation on biodegradation. BPI quotes the following”.

“Myth: Biodegradable products are the preferred environmental solutions because waste simply biodegrades in the landfill.

Reality: Nothing biodegrades in a landfill because nothing is supposed to.”

Although some would like to believe we can simply will away microbes from digesting garbage in a landfill we have been unsuccessful up until this point. I think anyone who has attended a high school biology class would know that biodegradation through microbial activity happens basically everywhere on the planet and in either aerobic and anaerobic environments. The environmental laws we have passed requiring landfills to capture and burn the methane generated through the process of microbes breaking down organic materials in anaerobic conditions found in landfill environments is a testament that biodegradation does in fact happen in landfills.

Although it may have seemed like magic to our ancestors and still today to a rare few, the activities from microbes on our planet is so vital to our existence. As we continue to develop and evolve as a species it is hopeful that we can recognize and develop symbiotic relationships with these tiny organisms. One such relationship would be the creation of methane gases by allowing microbes to naturally digest our organic waste which is then used as a source for clean inexpensive energy. Our garbage becomes a source of microbial food which becomes a source for clean energy which reduces our reliance on fossil fuels, which helps to improve the environment.

References:

By Danny Clark

Share this: