 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| Questions and Comments backfire@ofthisandthat.org |
ofthisandthat Commentary |
Copyright © 2017 ofthisandthat.org.
All rights reserved.
All rights reserved.
August 3, 2019
CAN RECYCLING REALLY SOLVE THE PLASTICS PROBLEM?
Meena Miriam Yust and Arshad M. Khan
Source: Counterpunch.org
The practice of recycling has everything to commend it: On a finite planet, it
conserves resources; it is meretricious allowing us, as it does, to pin a mental merit
badge on our chests as we ready the assigned recycling bin once a week; and it is an
activity that is all good. We are saving the planet, albeit in a small way, from some of
the excesses of the developed world. And when everyone does their share, the
impact has to be unavoidably significant. Right. Or, does it?
If we examine what we recycle, that is paper, glass, metal cans and plastic, the junk
mail and other paper discarded is the most copious but plastic is close. Almost all of it
used to go to the developed world's great recycling bin in the east ... China. It
absorbed some 95 percent of EU recyclable waste and 70 percent from the US. But
China began to grow its own domestic garbage with the growth of its economy. The
consequences have not been unexpected. China announced a new policy in 2018,
named inexplicably National Sword, banning the import of most recyclables,
particularly plastics and contaminated materials.
Since then China's import of such recyclables has fallen 99 percent. Needless to say,
metals and glass are not as seriously affected. For the American recycling industry, it
has been a major earthquake. First, about 25 percent of recyclables are
contaminated and not recyclable. Then there are plastic bags. Not only are these,
too, not recyclable but they tend to jam up sorting machinery.
The sorting of waste sent to China had been taken over by families in port side
communities. It became their livelihood, retrieving whatever fetched a price and
dumping the rest. Piling up in ad hoc landfills, it washed down waterways into the
ocean. They were not the only culprits. Thus we have had the phenomenon of
whales being washed up dead, starved because stomachs were full of plastic -- 88
pounds densely packed in the stomach of one found in the Philippines and 50 pounds
inside another in Sardinia. China's ban on waste imports has been followed by
Malaysia and Vietnam. In March of this year, India joined them.
As the outlets for their waste disappear and as most of the plastics are not recycled,
self-reliance has been forced upon developed countries. All to the good for the
environment, because it will also curtail the use of plastics out of necessity. The truth
is only a fraction of plastic waste is recyclable, generally the white transparent bottles
of which some are preferred. Most ends up in landfills. A 2017 study in Science
Advances determined that 90% of plastics ever produced are still in the environment.
Yet in the past six decades an estimated 8 billion tons have been produced.
Moreover, the usage trend is upwards and in 2014 some 311 million tons were
produced worldwide.
There is though a small movement to restore reusable bottles, and a company called
Loop Industries may be on the right track. Their founders announced at the World
Economic Forum in 2019 that they aim to return to the milkman model, reusing bottles
for everything from edibles to shampoo and detergent. Loop has partnered with
Nestle, Proctor & Gamble, PepsiCo, and other large companies. Perhaps, if we all
return to the milk bottle model of the 1950s -- refilling containers to be used again --
there may be greater hope for the planet. The good news is, some towns and states
have already banned single-use plastic bottles.
Another intriguing possibility is to use the millions of tons of crustacean shells
discarded. Scientists are now able to extract chitin and chitosan from shrimp and
lobster shells. Still in the research stage, the process has to be made industrially
feasible, and there are also problems with hazardous waste as it uses potent
chemicals like sodium hydroxide. Biodegradable chitin and chitosan can be used as
plastic substitutes to make surfboards and anti-microbial food packaging.
Scotland-based CuanTec has developed a bacterial method that has eliminated 95
percent of the sodium hydroxide and also cut energy use by a third as the bacteria do
all the work. They use shells from the langoustines common in northern Europe, and
have already signed a contract with the large UK supermarket chain Waitrose to
supply flexible film for packaging fish. The film's antibacterial properties extend fish
shelf life by three days.
An unexpected and more insidious source of plastic pollution is synthetic clothing.
Researchers have determined that acrylic clothing may release more than 700,000
plastic fibers in a single wash. Polyester releases about 500,000 fibers, and a
poly-cotton blend releases about 137,000. These fibers end up in the water we drink
and the fish we eat. Making matters worse is the presence of microplastic at depths
up to the 1000 meters, investigated by Choy et al in the deep waters of Monterey Bay
using a remotely operated vehicle (ROV). The ROV collected the samples at ten
different depths. Maximum pollution was found, surprisingly, not at the surface but
from 200 to 600 meters below. They also collected red crabs and found plastics in
the gastrointestinal tract. Giant "sinkers," the particle filtering mucous houses used
for feeding by larvaceans and discarded after use, were collected at depths ranging
from 251 to 2967 meters to overlap and extend the range of the research. All
contained microplastics. Clearly, ridding the oceans of plastic pollution is an almost
unsurmountable problem.
Japanese manufacturers have come up with a washing machine filter to catch
microfibers, which may provide some aid if more widely distributed. Yet we still do not
know the efficacy of such devices. Curbing the problem at the source is still the most
sensible if we wish to sustain the planet. It is up to us.
Returning to the cheap, convenient and therefore ubiquitous plastic bags, there is
hope for now there are several different types: the most common are conventional
plastic bags, then there are compostable bags designed to be recycled in industrial
composters, biodegradable bags, and two types of oxo-biodegradable bags. The
latter degrade in open landscapes or on water surfaces like oceans. None degrade
too well in landfills. There is, however, another problem with compostable
biodegradales: to repel water and oil these have in them perfluoroalkyl and
polyfluoroalkyl substances in which an hydrogen atom has been replaced by fluorine.
Known as PFAS, these persistent chemicals leach out of the plastic and remain in the
compost to be absorbed by plants and later by humans to accumulate in their bodies.
However, it's back to landfills for the non-recyclables. In 2015, the US alone produced
34.5 million tons (or 13 percent of total municipal solid waste) of plastic waste from
which a small fraction (9 percent or 3.1 million tons) was recycled, 5.4 million tons was
incinerated with energy recovery and about 26 million tons ended up in landfills.
Burning reduces volume by 87 percent. However, open burning produces pollutants
including dangerous dioxins, so safe combustion requires a contained environment.
Unless there is a change, the plastic problem appears likely to keep growing. In 1950,
the world produced only about 2 million tons compared to over 300 million tons in
present times. The UN has taken a first step by adding plastic waste to the Basel
agreement on hazardous waste -- 187 countries have signed up, the US under the
Trump administration remains an exception.
Engineering institutions have become aware of the problem and are educating their
young members. As reported in their July 2019 issue of IET Member News, the British
electrical engineering professional body has two competitions sponsored by
Greenpeace and Greenseas. For the Greenpeace prize, teams have to come up with
methods, technologies and alternative delivery systems to reduce plastic packaging in
supermarkets. And the Greenseas challenge requires competitors to develop a
robotic machine to clear beaches of plastic cigarette stubs. The machine has to be
large enough to collect a reasonable amount and painted brightly to attract attention
and inform the public of the problem. Then there is OceanX Group, headed by a
young engineer, that is developing automated monitoring and cleanup technology to
remove plastic from waterways and better to detect sources. It employs artificial
intelligence including drones.
The inescapable upshot of all of this is a need for education. Sorting recyclables
initially and disposing non-recyclable material into the curbside waste bin could save
energy later, and many man-hours. Changes in the kind of plastic material produced
may also help. For instance, just reducing the coloring used in plastic bottles eases
recycling as these additives are expensive to remove. Also tax incentives for
manufacturers can only aid recycling efforts. However, the now evident danger to the
food chain begs including the cost of safe disposal (like controlled combustion for
example) in the price of items. Above all, the total amount of plastic generated can no
longer keep increasing; it has to be reduced.
Meena Miriam Yust is an attorney based in Chicago, IL with a special interest in the
environment.
Arshad M. Khan is a former professor who has, over many years, written occasionally
for the print and often for online media outlets.
CAN RECYCLING REALLY SOLVE THE PLASTICS PROBLEM?
Meena Miriam Yust and Arshad M. Khan
Source: Counterpunch.org
The practice of recycling has everything to commend it: On a finite planet, it
conserves resources; it is meretricious allowing us, as it does, to pin a mental merit
badge on our chests as we ready the assigned recycling bin once a week; and it is an
activity that is all good. We are saving the planet, albeit in a small way, from some of
the excesses of the developed world. And when everyone does their share, the
impact has to be unavoidably significant. Right. Or, does it?
If we examine what we recycle, that is paper, glass, metal cans and plastic, the junk
mail and other paper discarded is the most copious but plastic is close. Almost all of it
used to go to the developed world's great recycling bin in the east ... China. It
absorbed some 95 percent of EU recyclable waste and 70 percent from the US. But
China began to grow its own domestic garbage with the growth of its economy. The
consequences have not been unexpected. China announced a new policy in 2018,
named inexplicably National Sword, banning the import of most recyclables,
particularly plastics and contaminated materials.
Since then China's import of such recyclables has fallen 99 percent. Needless to say,
metals and glass are not as seriously affected. For the American recycling industry, it
has been a major earthquake. First, about 25 percent of recyclables are
contaminated and not recyclable. Then there are plastic bags. Not only are these,
too, not recyclable but they tend to jam up sorting machinery.
The sorting of waste sent to China had been taken over by families in port side
communities. It became their livelihood, retrieving whatever fetched a price and
dumping the rest. Piling up in ad hoc landfills, it washed down waterways into the
ocean. They were not the only culprits. Thus we have had the phenomenon of
whales being washed up dead, starved because stomachs were full of plastic -- 88
pounds densely packed in the stomach of one found in the Philippines and 50 pounds
inside another in Sardinia. China's ban on waste imports has been followed by
Malaysia and Vietnam. In March of this year, India joined them.
As the outlets for their waste disappear and as most of the plastics are not recycled,
self-reliance has been forced upon developed countries. All to the good for the
environment, because it will also curtail the use of plastics out of necessity. The truth
is only a fraction of plastic waste is recyclable, generally the white transparent bottles
of which some are preferred. Most ends up in landfills. A 2017 study in Science
Advances determined that 90% of plastics ever produced are still in the environment.
Yet in the past six decades an estimated 8 billion tons have been produced.
Moreover, the usage trend is upwards and in 2014 some 311 million tons were
produced worldwide.
There is though a small movement to restore reusable bottles, and a company called
Loop Industries may be on the right track. Their founders announced at the World
Economic Forum in 2019 that they aim to return to the milkman model, reusing bottles
for everything from edibles to shampoo and detergent. Loop has partnered with
Nestle, Proctor & Gamble, PepsiCo, and other large companies. Perhaps, if we all
return to the milk bottle model of the 1950s -- refilling containers to be used again --
there may be greater hope for the planet. The good news is, some towns and states
have already banned single-use plastic bottles.
Another intriguing possibility is to use the millions of tons of crustacean shells
discarded. Scientists are now able to extract chitin and chitosan from shrimp and
lobster shells. Still in the research stage, the process has to be made industrially
feasible, and there are also problems with hazardous waste as it uses potent
chemicals like sodium hydroxide. Biodegradable chitin and chitosan can be used as
plastic substitutes to make surfboards and anti-microbial food packaging.
Scotland-based CuanTec has developed a bacterial method that has eliminated 95
percent of the sodium hydroxide and also cut energy use by a third as the bacteria do
all the work. They use shells from the langoustines common in northern Europe, and
have already signed a contract with the large UK supermarket chain Waitrose to
supply flexible film for packaging fish. The film's antibacterial properties extend fish
shelf life by three days.
An unexpected and more insidious source of plastic pollution is synthetic clothing.
Researchers have determined that acrylic clothing may release more than 700,000
plastic fibers in a single wash. Polyester releases about 500,000 fibers, and a
poly-cotton blend releases about 137,000. These fibers end up in the water we drink
and the fish we eat. Making matters worse is the presence of microplastic at depths
up to the 1000 meters, investigated by Choy et al in the deep waters of Monterey Bay
using a remotely operated vehicle (ROV). The ROV collected the samples at ten
different depths. Maximum pollution was found, surprisingly, not at the surface but
from 200 to 600 meters below. They also collected red crabs and found plastics in
the gastrointestinal tract. Giant "sinkers," the particle filtering mucous houses used
for feeding by larvaceans and discarded after use, were collected at depths ranging
from 251 to 2967 meters to overlap and extend the range of the research. All
contained microplastics. Clearly, ridding the oceans of plastic pollution is an almost
unsurmountable problem.
Japanese manufacturers have come up with a washing machine filter to catch
microfibers, which may provide some aid if more widely distributed. Yet we still do not
know the efficacy of such devices. Curbing the problem at the source is still the most
sensible if we wish to sustain the planet. It is up to us.
Returning to the cheap, convenient and therefore ubiquitous plastic bags, there is
hope for now there are several different types: the most common are conventional
plastic bags, then there are compostable bags designed to be recycled in industrial
composters, biodegradable bags, and two types of oxo-biodegradable bags. The
latter degrade in open landscapes or on water surfaces like oceans. None degrade
too well in landfills. There is, however, another problem with compostable
biodegradales: to repel water and oil these have in them perfluoroalkyl and
polyfluoroalkyl substances in which an hydrogen atom has been replaced by fluorine.
Known as PFAS, these persistent chemicals leach out of the plastic and remain in the
compost to be absorbed by plants and later by humans to accumulate in their bodies.
However, it's back to landfills for the non-recyclables. In 2015, the US alone produced
34.5 million tons (or 13 percent of total municipal solid waste) of plastic waste from
which a small fraction (9 percent or 3.1 million tons) was recycled, 5.4 million tons was
incinerated with energy recovery and about 26 million tons ended up in landfills.
Burning reduces volume by 87 percent. However, open burning produces pollutants
including dangerous dioxins, so safe combustion requires a contained environment.
Unless there is a change, the plastic problem appears likely to keep growing. In 1950,
the world produced only about 2 million tons compared to over 300 million tons in
present times. The UN has taken a first step by adding plastic waste to the Basel
agreement on hazardous waste -- 187 countries have signed up, the US under the
Trump administration remains an exception.
Engineering institutions have become aware of the problem and are educating their
young members. As reported in their July 2019 issue of IET Member News, the British
electrical engineering professional body has two competitions sponsored by
Greenpeace and Greenseas. For the Greenpeace prize, teams have to come up with
methods, technologies and alternative delivery systems to reduce plastic packaging in
supermarkets. And the Greenseas challenge requires competitors to develop a
robotic machine to clear beaches of plastic cigarette stubs. The machine has to be
large enough to collect a reasonable amount and painted brightly to attract attention
and inform the public of the problem. Then there is OceanX Group, headed by a
young engineer, that is developing automated monitoring and cleanup technology to
remove plastic from waterways and better to detect sources. It employs artificial
intelligence including drones.
The inescapable upshot of all of this is a need for education. Sorting recyclables
initially and disposing non-recyclable material into the curbside waste bin could save
energy later, and many man-hours. Changes in the kind of plastic material produced
may also help. For instance, just reducing the coloring used in plastic bottles eases
recycling as these additives are expensive to remove. Also tax incentives for
manufacturers can only aid recycling efforts. However, the now evident danger to the
food chain begs including the cost of safe disposal (like controlled combustion for
example) in the price of items. Above all, the total amount of plastic generated can no
longer keep increasing; it has to be reduced.
Meena Miriam Yust is an attorney based in Chicago, IL with a special interest in the
environment.
Arshad M. Khan is a former professor who has, over many years, written occasionally
for the print and often for online media outlets.