Greenpeace challenges popular solutions for reducing plastic pollution
Amy J. Born | October 16, 2019A recent report from Greenpeace concludes that some of the most popular solutions for curbing plastics pollution are, in fact, not solutions at all and actually contribute to the growing problem. The report, Throwing Away the Future: How Companies Still Have it Wrong on Plastic Pollution Solutions, highlights plastic packaging, which it identifies as "the largest source of plastic waste in the environment" because it is inherently single-use.
News stories about the extent of plastic pollution from the depths of the ocean to the top of the world emphasize the sheer volume of the problem. While the largest contributors to plastic waste, fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) companies such as Nestle, PepsiCo, Coca-Cola and Proctor & Gamble, may tout investment in alternative practices as a way to curb the impact of plastic in the environment, Greenpeace claims that none of them has committed to reducing the amount of plastic being produced and distributed overall, what the organization sees as the only viable solution.
The report identifies three popular practices it calls "false solutions." These are replacing plastic with other forms of single-use packaging, investment in partnerships to improve recycling and waste management, and emerging technologies that do not reduce the demand for plastic. The report outlines the problems associated with each of these.
Paper alternatives to plastic packaging negatively impact forests, essentially exchanging one problem for another. The report states that "logging and large-scale industrial tree plantations drive natural forest loss degradation, emitting huge amounts of CO2." Bio-based plastic, which may seem more environmentally friendly than petroleum-based types, comes largely from agriculture crops. Competition with food crops can lead to food insecurity, while the production of agricultural commodities contributes to deforestation, loss of habitat and an increase in greenhouse gas emissions.
According to the report, 90% of the plastic ever produced has not been recycled and "is far more likely to end up in landfills, incinerators or in the environment than to be recycled." Recycling systems cannot handle the amount of plastic waste being produced and current systems neither recover enough material to replace virgin plastic or meet their stated proper disposal objectives.
Flexible plastics cannot be turned into the equivalent of virgin plastic through mechanical recycling due to the degradation of the material. Therefore, companies are turning to chemical processes, such as chemical depolymerization and thermal depolymerization, which Greenpeace said is risky. Chemical depolymerization doesn't solve the problem of accessing enough single-stream recyclable material and still produces poor quality plastic. Despite eliminating combustion, thermal depolymerization requires a considerable amount of energy and can create hazardous byproducts.
Greenpeace puts the responsibility on the FMCGs to rethink the way products are delivered to consumers with the priority of reducing the number of units sold in single-use packaging and "investment in solutions focused on reuse, refill and other systems not dependant on disposables."
Paper alternatives to plastic packaging negatively impact forests, essentially exchanging one problem for another. The report states that "logging and large-scale industrial tree plantations drive natural forest loss degradation, emitting huge amounts of CO2."
www.twosides.info/my ths-and-facts claims re European paper industry:
European forests are growing year-on-year. They supply 90% of the wood used by the European paper industry.
73.3% of paper is recycled in Europe - close to the practical maximum of 78%.
53% of the fibre used by the European paper industry comes from paper for recycling.
The paper industry's CO2 emissions reduced by 25% between 2005 and 2017
In reply to #1
Oh David you forgot the old adage; "never let truth get in the way of a good news story!"
In reply to #2
It seems that Greenpeace is not happy with the ways things are - fair enough, they do need changing and we all need to consume less.
But GP doesn't like any of the solutions and keeps repeating the same mantra without any practical input into solving the problem.
Reminds me of Brexit - lots of people saying "I don't like that" to each and every proposal.
Shouting from the sidelines is easy, coming up with solutions is difficult - time to bring in the Engineers!