This cure could be worse than the disease. As usual, they say the material will come from crop wastes. As usual, fresh materials will be used instead, perhaps with dire consequences.
The answer is not different disposable materials. It's reusable bottles. theguardian.com/environment/20…
The answer is not different disposable materials. It's reusable bottles. theguardian.com/environment/20…
NEVER believe the promise "we'll use waste material". With biodiesel, biogas and biomass burning, this promise has been repeatedly broken. Fresh materials provide more consistent feedstocks and are cheaper to handle. The promise of "eventually" recycling waste is pure spin.
ALWAYS ask: where will the material come from? How much land is needed to grow it? How much food production will it displace? How much farm chemical use and soil erosion will it cause?
We've been here many times before, but keep falling for the same con.
theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
We've been here many times before, but keep falling for the same con.
theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
Much of what is called "biowaste" or "crop waste" is
a. in short supply
b. would be better returned to the soil.
We are sold a story of an infinite, free supply of "waste" organic materials. It's as much of a fantasy as any other aspect of a perpetually growing economy.
a. in short supply
b. would be better returned to the soil.
We are sold a story of an infinite, free supply of "waste" organic materials. It's as much of a fantasy as any other aspect of a perpetually growing economy.
It's a distraction anyway. The logic of capitalism is always to find the most efficient feedstock, and build the process around it. This is why maize is grown (on prime arable land) to make biogas, why palm oil is grown to produce biodiesel, and potatoes are grown for bioplastic.
In all cases, these "solutions" have disastrous impacts, generally even worse than the problem they claim to be solving. The old hierarchical approach is always best:
1. Reduce
2. Reuse
3. Recycle
1. Reduce
2. Reuse
3. Recycle
I want to emphasise this:
The two crops widely used for making plastic substitutes - maize and potatoes - are both commonly associated with
a. loads of crop chemicals
b. disastrous levels of soil depletion and erosion.
The two crops widely used for making plastic substitutes - maize and potatoes - are both commonly associated with
a. loads of crop chemicals
b. disastrous levels of soil depletion and erosion.
In terms of carbon emissions, when everything is taken into account (including the losses caused by soil erosion), they are probably worse than fossil feedstocks. Bioplastics take prime arable land out of food production. The crop chemicals hammer water quality and insect life.
The question is not "which kind of plastic should we use?".
It's "how do we use less of everything?".
A good start is not to let industry define the terms of this discussion.
It's "how do we use less of everything?".
A good start is not to let industry define the terms of this discussion.
