GreenYes Archives

[GreenYes Archives] - [Thread Index] - [Date Index]
[Date Prev] - [Date Next] - [Thread Prev] - [Thread Next]

[GreenYes] The View from the Plastics Industry

San Francisco board turning back time

(Nov. 27, 2006) -- Fire up the "wayback machine," Sherman and Peabody!
San Francisco's board of supervisors is taking us back to 1987.

And that's not a good thing for conventional plastics companies.

The headline that's taking us back in time is on the story about San
Francisco's ban on polystyrene food-service products in restaurants.
It's like they've forgotten about all the things we've learned since the
Mobro 4000 garbage barge brought the solid waste "crisis" to the front
burner of American politics almost two decades ago.

Look at the facts:

* The San Francisco board of supervisors' vote to ban PS was unanimous.
(No elected officials spoke up on behalf of industry? It must be popular
to be anti-plastics again.)

* The law will require restaurants to use biodegradable or compostable
alternatives even if they cost more. (Biodegradables? Don't they
remember William Rathje's research on what doesn't happen in landfills?
Even hot dogs don't degrade in a modern landfill. Two decades ago,
plastic trash bag suppliers got into trouble for marketing their
products as biodegradable. What's changed?)

* And supporters are touting this as a way to solve a growing litter
problem. (Isn't litter a problem with humans, not materials?)

This is progress?

To be fair, elected leaders in San Francisco, and all of California, are
trying very hard to do something about ocean pollution. That's a topic
that is rightfully getting a lot of attention these days. Plastics are a
key component in what is now called the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, a
floating mass of trash that is accumulating in the North Pacific
subtropical gyre. The patch is a menace to sea life. Some officials in
California believe that if more plastic litter would biodegrade, it
would help solve the problem.

Today there's a growing trend in many plastics end markets for what
people are touting as "green" products. The question is, what's green?
Is degradability the answer? Or recycled content? Or a more complicated
appraisal that factors in carbon dioxide, energy, solid waste and the
difficult-to-define sustainability factor?

Initially, plastics processors and their suppliers will try to define
it, and marketers will try to win points with whatever they're handed.
Ultimately, the public will decide.

Plastics have a good story to tell when all of the factors are taken
into account. But the news from San Francisco is troubling, because no
one on the West Coast seems to be paying attention.


A related topic is the debate between some small PET recyclers and
Natureworks LLC, the main supplier of corn-based polylactide. The
recyclers say a growing number of PLA bottles in the PET recycling
stream are a contaminant, and they're asking for a moratorium on further
expansion of PLA into water bottles.

On one hand, PLA is riding the sustainability wave. Who is to say that
PET - even recycled PET - is environmentally superior to PLA? Shouldn't
the decision be up to the free market?

On the other hand, the plastics industry should work hard to avoid
problems that threaten the PET recycling stream. PET is a bright spot in
the plastics recycling market in North America. Sabotage that, and we
open ourselves to all sorts of environmental criticism.

[ Opinion <> ]

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GreenYes" group.
To post to this group, send email to GreenYes@no.address
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to GreenYes-unsubscribe@no.address
For more options, visit this group at

[GreenYes Archives] - [Date Index] - [Thread Index]
[Date Prev] - [Date Next] - [Thread Prev] - [Thread Next]