|
ZERO WASTE AND PRODUCT DESIGN:
ALTERNATIVES TO PLASTIC
Adapted from the Berkeley
Plastics Task Force Report. Fo the report in full, please click
HERE.
**Articles on specific plastic alternatives
can be found after this excerpt***
How can we address the problems posed by plastic packaging in
a constructive way? There are five main actions the public can
take.
Reduce the use – source reduction and zero waste.
The most direct way to eliminate the problems that stem from producing,
using, and disposing of plastic packaging is to reduce the use
of packaging. Retailers and consumers can select products that
use little or no packaging, and when packaging is necessary, select
packaging materials that are recycled into new packaging —
such as glass, aluminum, and paper. Many product manufacturers,
such as water bottlers, have only recently switched from an easily
recyclable container to plastic. If people refuse plastic as a
packaging material, the industry will decrease production for
that purpose, and the associated problems such as energy use,
pollution, and adverse health effects will diminish. Established
waste management groups cannot be expected to organize or support
source reduction efforts. For example, the primary plastic recycling
entity, the American Plastics Council, does not include source
reduction in its charter and systematically overlooked it until
recently, when it began promoting lighter-weight packages as source
reduction. This "solution" creates the same high number
of containers and tends to legitimize their production. Reducing
the use lies in the hands of consumers, retailers, and elected
officials.
Reuse containers.
One effective and inexpensive source-reduction technique is container
reuse. Since refillable plastic containers can be reused about
25 times, container reuse can lead to a substantial reduction
in the demand for disposable plastic. The direct result is reduced
use of materials and energy, with the consequent reduced environmental
impacts. In addition, some important indirect benefits stem from
container reuse. If reuse becomes a market objective, resin and
container designers will take into account the fate of the container
beyond the point of sale and consider the service the container
provides. "Design for service" differs sharply from
the "design for disposal" paradigm underlying most plastic
packaging today. As with take-back programs, reuse makes new demands
on both the material and the infrastructure. Container makers
can directly participate in developing a refilling infrastructure
and encouraging public participation. An innovative approach to
encourage consumers to choose reusable and refillable containers
could be to include these containers in curbside collection services.
The benefit of such an approach or any public education program
that promotes reuse would be a higher level of public awareness
about how their choices in consumption affect the environment.
Require producers to take back resins.
Getting plastic manufacturers directly involved with plastic disposal
and waste closes the materials loop, which can lead to developing
more recyclable materials and establishing an infrastructure to
accomplish the reprocessing. Closing the loop stimulates designers
and manufacturers to consider the product’s life cycle from
cradle to grave.
Container makers can make reprocessing easier by limiting the
number of container types and shapes, using only one type of resin
in each container, making collapsible containers, using water-dispersible
adhesives for labels, and phasing out associated metals such as
aluminum seals. Resin manufacturers can limit the variety of resins
within each resin type, avoid using pigments, and formulate resins
to better withstand post-consumer processing. Both container and
resin makers can help develop the reprocessing infrastructure
by taking back plastic from consumers.
Legislatively require recycled content.
Requiring that all containers sold contain a percentage of post-consumer
material reduces the amount of virgin material consumed. Although
not as effective as other source reduction techniques, mandating
recycled content is one way to implement primary recycling and,
as a result, to close part of the materials-flow loop. Worn-out
refillable containers could become a source of feedstock. Incorporating
primary recycling into a system of container reuse would be straightforward,
since established transportation lines exist between container
makers and filling locations.
If container makers were required to use recycled material, designers
would be stimulated to create containers that are more recyclable.
If resin producers participated in post-consumer plastic processing,
polymer materials would be altered to be more recyclable. In these
ways, instituting recycled-content practices would lead to life-cycle
consideration during design and manufacturing.
Standardize labeling and inform the public.
No matter what kind of program is adopted for dealing with plastics,
standardized terms and labels are necessary for the sake of clarity
and fairness. The chasing arrows symbol is an example of an ambiguous
and misleading label. Significantly different standardized labels
for "recycled," "recyclable," and "made
of plastic type x" must be developed.
In addition, if a working definition can be found for "ecologically
friendly," an ecomark system similar to those in Taiwan and
Germany could be initiated to distinguish products that conform
to the definition from those that do not. An independent entity
could be used to audit the environmental impact of products and
certify conformance. The implementation of standards and labeling
programs must be accompanied by public education.
The goal of both standardized labeling and public education is
to open access to, and activate public participation in, plastic
packaging practices, programs, and policies.
Principles of Green Chemistry and
Appropriate Product Design
1. Prevent waste
2. Maximize the incorporation of all process materials into the
finished product
3. Use and generate substances that have little or no toxicity
4. Preserve efficacy of function while reducing toxicity
5. Minimize auxiliary substances
6. Minimize energy inputs- use ambient temperatures and pressures
7. Use renewable materials
8. Avoid unnecessary derivations
9. Use catalytic reagents over stoichiometric reagents
10. Design for natural post use decomposition
11. Use in-process monitoring to prevent the formation of hazardous
substances
12. Minimize the potential for accidents
Given those principles and the six principles
developed by Kenneth Geiser
1. Increase the intensity of materials use
2. Substitutionof services for products
3. Do not allow the dissipation of degradable toxics
4. Close the materials loop by reuse and recycling
5. Make use of Environmentally appropriate materials
6. Prevent the use and manufacture of bio-accumulative toxins
An alternative set of practices to plastics production will
involve the following principals:
1. Material substitution: develop and use materials which can
replace plastics. In many cases this may involve a reversion
to technoligically simple materials like glass and biologically
(plant) based products
2. Maximum use of refillable and reuseable materials (for example,
refillable bottles for drinks, etc.)
3. Bioplastics such as polylactic acid (where appropriate...Reuse
is almost always a better choice)
4. Policies reflecting a preference for ecologically sound products
5. Extended producer responsibility: manufacturers should seek
to design products which can be reused and easily collected
for recycling (preferably the producer will assume this responsibility).
ALTERNATIVES IN ACTION
Jute Bags/ Fabric:
(From India) Jute Packaging Order
in Limbo (2002)
Green Taxes:
Green tax takes 1bn plastic bags
off the shelves The plastic bag levy will raise 10m this
year Irish Independent Tuesday, August 20, 2002
Reuseable bottles:
Link
to offsiite to Mindfully.org listing with US dairys that bottle
in Glass.
PVC Alternatives:
HUHTAMAKI BECOMES
FIRST FOODSERVICE MANUFACTURER TO OFFER PROCESSED
CHLORINE FREE PACKAGING
Alternatives to PVC: An Economic
Analysis, Presentation at the Austin Green Building Conference
by Frank Ackerman (2002)
|
