Can plastics be green, and just what does that mean?

Is it possible for plastic to be “green,” and if so, just what does that term mean?

Well, there are whole industries out there working on this, and there are certainly plastics being marketed as green.

(Image: Just how green is this stuff? That depends on what "green" means. Credit: EPA.)

But as a definitive term for plastic products, “green” is pretty useless.

In the words of Lewis Carroll, (through his character Humpty Dumpty), the term “means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

In its broadest definition, green is meant to refer to plastic that is in some way easier on the environment than other kinds of plastic.

Several broad categories of “green” come to mind.

One is plastics that are recyclable—reformulable into new products. Some plastic products are made of mixes of products that cannot later be broken down and put into molds to form new consumer items. But realistically, in most communities, many kinds of even the technically recyclable plastics are not accepted for recycling—so simply having the recycling symbol is meaningless.

The Daily Green has a nice rundown on plastic recycling symbols and what they mean here.

http://www.thedailygreen.com/green-homes/latest/recycling-symbols-plastics-460321

A second green category would be plastic products actually made from recycled plastic.

Still another “green category” is those plastics not made from petroleum products at all, like corn-based plastics. Some folks call these bioplastics, and argue that their net addition of carbon dioxide to the environment is dramatically lower than that of oil-based plastic. Largely, that's because the plants from which the product is derived suck up carbon dioxide while they grow, while petroleum products simply take stored carbon out of the ground and dump some of them into the atmosphere.

Fourth, there are “biodegradable” plastics. We put quotes around the word, because some require quite specialized conditions before they biodegrade. This blog discussed that issue earlier. http://raisingislands.blogspot.com/2008/09/compostable-plastic-challenge-to.html

Some companies are trying to hit as many of these “green” buttons as possible. An example is the Biogreen Bottle, which claims to be “biodegradable, recyclable, reusable and made from recyclable material.” You can drill down through the various claims at the website, http://www.biogreenbottles.com/.

Our worry, given the results of our corn-based “biodegradable” plastic experiment, is that it's hard to test the Biogreen claims, which say they require one to five years of deep landfill microbial action for full conversion of the plastic into humus and methane.

All in all, with plastics, a consumer needs to be alert, wary and pretty well educated to make sense of all the claims.

And when you're reaching into a plastic shopping bag, cutting open a box sealed with plastic tape, ripping through a plastic clamshell container to get at your plastic product inside, you might need to wonder just what in heck you're doing.

©2009 Jan TenBruggencate

Of straw men, red herrings and climate change

There's your straw man, your red herring, your stalking horse—the techniques people use when they don't have a supportable position.

They have no place in debate over serious public policy issues—but of course, they're all over the place in the debate over serious public policy issues.

What prompts this particular post is U.S. House Minority Leader John Boehner's amazing statement this weekend on carbon dioxide and climate change.

What he said, in a discussion with George Stephanopoulos, was this: “The idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen that is harmful to our environment is almost comical. Every time we exhale, we exhale carbon dioxide. Every cow in the world, you know, when they do what they do, you’ve got more carbon dioxide.”

Nobody thinks carbon dioxide causes cancer.

So Boehner was using a classic straw man—saying the scientific world is nuts when it claims something it doesn't claim.

Or it's a red herring—get people thinking about cancer when they ought to be thinking about climate.

Or maybe Boehner is a stalking horse—consciously making a fool of himself while something else is going on under cover.

One supposes it's possible Boehner was doing none of these things—that he simply is so stunningly ill-informed that he doesn't know the difference between cancer and climate.

And at some level, it doesn't matter. What matters is that he's stupendously wrong—and that there are people out there listening to him.

We're reminded of the old lawyer's maxim: If you have the facts, argue the facts. If you have the law, argue the law. If you have neither, pound the table.

Boehner, and so many other climate deniers, are resorting to pounding the table.

(The straw man technique is first to misrepresent an opponent's position, and then to ridicule or knock down the misrepresentation. The straw man is by definition easy to knock down.
(A red herring is a false proposition set forth to misdirect the reader or listener from the truth.
(A stalking horse is used to attract the attention while someone else skates by below the radar, often with nefarious intent.)

© Jan TenBruggencate 2009

Is it as "green" as they say? Mostly, nope.

You knew this, right? When most companies tell you they're “green,” they're lying—at least a little.

(Image: Is it really green? This image represents the "greenwashing" Sin of Vagueness. Source: Terrachoice Environmental Marketing.)

The technique is called “greenwashing,” and it's designed to convince consumers that the product is somehow better than competitors, or is safer, or has reduced negative impact on the environment.

The environmental marketing firm Terrachoice has issued its 2009 version of the Sins of Greenwashing.

You can read it yourself at the link above, but as we're here to do some of the work for you, here are some highlights.

Terrachoice identified seven “sins” of greenwashing, and then went out and checked more than 2,200 products sold in North America. Its conclusion: 98 percent committed at least one sin.

Put another way, that means that only one product out of 50 is actually as environmentally friendly as it says it is.

And what are the Terrachoice seven sins? Here they are, from the Greenwashing Sins report.

One, the hidden trade-off. Saying paper from a sustainably harvested forest is actually greener may be false if that paper is produced with higher levels of greenhouse gases or water pollution.

Two, no proof. Some products claim recycled content, for example, that nobody has checked.

Three, vagueness. “All-natural” doesn't mean safe, or green. Botulism is natural, as is lead and also radioactive plutonium. (Yep, "radioactive" plutonium commits a kind of sin, since most any plutionium you're likely to find will be radioactive.")

Four, irrelevance. Terrachoice uses the example “CFC-free.” It's kind of meaningless, since CFC content is illegal. Makes as much sense as a label saying “Contains no nuclear weapons” on a bottle of beer.

Five, lesser of two evils. Like, organic cigarettes are better for you than regular ones.

Six, fibbing. Making claims that are outright false. Thankfully, this sin is the least common, Terrachoice says.

And the newest addition to the list, Sin Seven: worshipping false labels. This can take several forms, among them posting some kind of meaningless “certification” image. Some companies use logos that don't actually have any certification process behind them.

The whole business challenges consumers to do more than read labels, but also to think about them.

If a can of beans says “eco-friendly,” you can legitimately ask, “Says who?”

If a shaker of baby powder says “all natural,” you can ask, “But what about allergens and toxicity?”

And lots of products say they're biodegradable. But this puts the burden on the buyer, because unless you subject the product to the exact conditions it needs to biodegrade, it won't. Example: biodegradable plastics made from corn require fairly high heat and moisture to break down. An average backyard compost bin won't degrade it very quickly, and if it goes to the landfill, it may not degrade in your lifetime.

When you do see a logo, pay attention. These are the ones Terrachoice has determined have some validity: Design for the Environment, U.S. EPA; EcoCert; EcoLogo; Energy Star; Epeat; Forest Stewardship Council (FSC); Green Seal; Greenguard; Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI); USDA Organic; WaterSense.

These aren't all the legit certification logos, so don't reject a product simply for the lack of one of these. On the other hand, encourage firms to convince you with real data rather than a slogan and a picture.

“In the absence of a reliable eco-label, remember the Seven Sins of Greenwashing (www.sinsofgreenwashing.org) and choose the product that offers transparency, information and education,” said Terrachoice.

© Jan TenBruggencate 2009

New call for study of false killer whales around Hawai'i

An apparent crash in the population of false killer whales around the Hawaiian Islands has prompted a call for new research into whay that's happening.

One of the questions is whether and how much fishing is affecting the whales.

(Image: NOAA photo of false killer whales off Hawaii by Robin Baird.)

The Marine Mammal Advisory Committee of the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council met last week in Honolulu and called for a series of studies into whale populations.

Among the reviews recommended: aerial counts, photo identification and genetic work on the population; assessments of the impact of longline and shortline (longlines less than a nautical line in length) fishing on the whales; determining to what degree the whales are impacted by being shot by fishermen and ingesting hooks when they go after bait or hooked fish; getting the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument to study the whales in its waters; and more.

It's generally concluded that the large dolphins known as false killer whales have two distinct populations around Hawai'i. One is a group of several hundred whales that remain around the islands, and the other is the pelagic stock that ranges long distances through the eastern North Pacific.

As far as the National Marine Fisheries Service knows, Hawai'i's longline fleet catches fewer than six animals a year, but there is not enough information on whether that has a significant impact on the local population.

“There is also no data available on the current productivity rate or on the current population trend of the Hawaii stocks. Furthermore, additional injury and mortality of false killer whales is known to occur outside of the EEZ by US and international longline operations, and the potential effect on the Hawaii pelagic stock is unknown,” the fishery council said in a news release.

There are some 6,000 foreign longline ships working the Pacific. About 125 are based in Hawai'i. But additionally, there are many largely unregulated recreational and nearshore shortline fishing boats working from Hawai'i harbors.

There was some information at the meeting, generally anecdotal, that some of the unregulated fishers deliberately shoot false killer whales that come into contact with their fishing gear.
For more information see the fishery council website.

For more information on false killer whales, see this NOAA website, or visit http://www.cascadiaresearch.org/robin/falsekillerwhale.htm.

© Jan TenBruggencate 2009

Dramatic greenhouse cuts necessary and also possible

If you want to help save the world as we know it, it will take more than incremental changes, according to new research.

A switch from an 18-mile-per-gallon car to a 20 mpg car won't do it. That's just a 10 percent improvement. We need 70 percent, according to new research.

(Image: New computer simulations show the extent that average air temperatures at Earth's surface could warm by 2080-2099 compared to 1980-1999, if (top) greenhouse gases emissions continue to climb at current rates, or if (bottom) society cuts emissions by 70 percent. In the latter case, temperatures rise by less than 2°C (3.6°F) across nearly all of Earth's populated areas. However, unchecked emissions could lead to warming of 3°C (5.4°F) or more across parts of Europe, Asia, North America, and Australia. (Graphic courtesy Geophysical Research Letters, modified by UCAR.)

New research, as the caption indicates, is suggesting we need a 70 percent cut in greenhouse gases to stabilize climate change, reduce flooding potential in Waikiki, minimize droughts, and so forth.

For the car, 70 percent means going from an 18 miles per gallon to a 60 miles per gallon vehicle--but that's just one way to do it.

For the 60 watt lightbulb, switching from incandescent to fluorescent will work, since it cuts emissions about three-quarters for the same amount of light.

In other areas, the saving are more difficult to attain, and more difficult to calculate. You can't readily cut your food consumption by 70 percent, but by eating locally grown produce, you could reduce significantly the among of travel energy inherent at the kitchen table, for instance.

It still won't prevent the loss of the world as we know it, but it could help keep the world from being too different, said researchers who report in the April 21 issue of Geophysical Research Letters, a publication of the American Geophysical Union (AGU).

"This research indicates that we can no longer avoid significant warming during this century. But, if the world were to implement this level of emission cuts, we could stabilize the threat of climate change and avoid catastrophe," said lead author Warren Washington, a scientist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).

The AGU in a press release noted that global temperatures are up nearly 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit in the last century, much (but not all) of it the result of human activities. And there's a suggestion that this level of change may put the globe near some kind of climate tipping point.

The paper is entitled, "How much climate change can be avoided by mitigation?" Its authors are Washington, Gerald A. Meehl, Haiyan Teng, David Lawrence, Lawrence Buja and W. Gary Strand, all of NCAR in Colorado; Reto Knutti: Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, ETH, Zurich, Switzerland; and Claudia Tebaldi: Climate Central, Princeton, New Jersey and Palo Alto, California.

Computerized climate models are favorite targets for frothing climate change deniers, but Washington and his associates got some interesting information out of them, using NCAR's Community Climate System Model, running on supercomputers.

They assumed that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which has already risen from 280 to 380 parts per million since the start of the industrial age, will rise to 450. That's viewed by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program as a reachable goal if significant conservation programs are enacted. If not, the numbers is 750 by 2100.

At 450, they calculated that temperatures would go up another degree Fahrenheit by 2100, that sea level rise would still happen but could be reduced by three inches or so. Fisheries would be preserved by fish not moving to new waters where temperatures were more to their liking. And dramatic droughts in the American Southwest and floods in the Northeast could be limited.

The result, the authors say: “The climate system would stabilize by about 2100, instead of continuing to warm.”

"This study provides some hope that we can avoid the worst impacts of climate change -- if society can cut emissions substantially over the next several decades and continue major cuts through the century," Washington said.

It's not impossible; not even that difficult. If you want to keep the gas guzzler, just invite your neighbors to commute to work with you. Put three one-person-per-car commuters into a single vehicle together, and you cut emissions close to two-thirds.

And it may help prevent the accident you get into, chatting with each other on the cell phone while commuting.

How many other ideas for 70 percent cuts in energy production can you come up with?

© Jan TenBruggencate 2009