17/01/2024
Between scoffing mince pies and watching Die Hard (again), I found time over the festive period to watch David Attenborough’s latest documentary series, Planet Earth III. While the shots were predictably spectacular and the animals suitably fascinating, this time around the series focused much more on the destruction of the natural world due to human activity. The tear-jerking stories included a family of African elephants facing decimation following climate change induced drought; a Brazilian maned wolf and her pups narrowly avoiding disaster as their grassland home is burned to make way for agriculture; and numerous sea turtles trapped in floating plastic detritus.
The show demonstrated the urgent need for improved sustainable infrastructure and a move towards a more circular economy. We have written previously about the ground-breaking technologies at the vanguard of this sustainability movement (for example here and here). I was treated to a showcase of just this sort of innovation at a recent sustainable plastics conference. However, the conference left me feeling uneasy. At the event, leaders in sustainability shared their views on how to solve the scourge of plastic pollution globally. The problem was, none of them could agree on how to do it.
Breaking Things Down
Several exhibitors at the conference produced biodegradable polymers, such as polymeric films. The universal adoption of biodegradable polymers would clearly cut down on the amount of plastic pollution persisting in the natural world. Good news for those sea turtles. Biodegradable polymers are very well suited for short term use cases such as takeaway food containers and condiment sachets. But the material has its limits. At the conference, a speaker admitted that food packaged in biodegradable plastics would have a reduced shelf life, and that our shopping habits would need to adapt to compensate for this. So more frequent trips to the supermarket to buy fewer goods; hardly efficient. We would also need to rely even more on refrigeration, which comes with its own substantial carbon cost. One can envisage that shorter shelf lives will also lead to an increase in food waste. The average British household already discards the equivalent of eight meals a week (here). With 8.4 million people in food poverty (here), more food waste cannot be part of the solution. Moreover, when this food waste decomposes, it releases methane, a particularly potent greenhouse gas. The World Wildlife Fund estimates that between 6 and 8 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions are due to rotting food waste (here); do we really need any more?
The biodegradable plastics also require feedstock material. These often include carbohydrate rich plants such as maize and sugar cane (here). Another conflict then arises. Should we use our valuable land to grow bioplastic feedstock at the expense of food, or solar farms, or homes, or even rewilding? Does the need to protect the sea turtle justify the destruction of the maned wolf’s habitat?
To their credit, many of the biodegradable plastic producers advocated using agricultural waste, or even seaweed and algae as feedstock material. This at least solves the land use conflict. However, what happens when these biodegradable plastics decompose? Yes, they release carbon dioxide.
Bottle Banking
Other experts at the plastics conference believed that the spread of biodegradable plastics would just further entrench our throw-away attitude. They argued that we need to shift our mindset on plastic waste and regard it as a valuable material, not something to be discarded. Government policy can go some way to promote this. Legislation included in the Environment Act 2021 set the groundwork for the UK’s first deposit return scheme. Under this scheme, a number of specific waste articles including PET bottles, steel cans, and glass bottles, will be sold with a small deposit (say 20p). The deposit being redeemable when the used article is returned by the consumer for recycling or reuse. The upsides are obvious. By assigning a clear value to each waste article, recycling is incentivised. In Norway, which first introduced a deposit return scheme in the early 1970s, less than 1 percent of plastic containers end up as litter. In fact the overwhelming majority of plastic waste washing up in the countries majestic fjords are from neighbouring nations.
A well-managed deposit return scheme may seem like a win-win, but it wouldn’t be for everyone. The cost of living crisis is already pushing household finances to the limit. Yes, the deposit is redeemable, but many will simply not be able to afford the additional 20p on every container they purchase. The additional cost for administering the scheme will also likely be passed onto the consumer. A deposit return scheme would also effectively end kerbside recycling for glass, metal, and plastic bottles. Currently these materials are collected by councils and sold for a profit; Gloucester Council makes an estimated £1.2 million annually from selling recycling materials (here). Ending this would deprive local authorities of a valuable income stream at a time when they are already struggling. Finally, hundreds of individual cars driving to recycling centres to deposit a handful of bottles is considerably less carbon efficient than a bin lorry driving down your street once a fortnight. Trade-offs are everywhere.
The UK’s scheme has been beset with delays and disagreement; the earliest we might expect to see our scheme in action is October 2025. Many in the industry believe even this is too ambitious; I wouldn’t bother collecting bottles just yet.
Meat Expectations
Rather than doing anything too clever, many companies are simply trying to reduce the amount of plastic used in their packaging. This is perhaps best exemplified by Sainsbury’s much maligned vacuum packed beef mince. This new packaging, introduced in February 2023, uses a flexible Low Density Polyethylene (LDPE) rather than the traditional Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) tray. The switch saves at least 55 percent plastic by weight. This in turn will reduce the carbon cost associated with making and transporting the product. However, consumers were not impressed; one complained that the beef looked “like I’ve bought someone’s kidney” (here). Others were quick to point out that while PET trays are widely recycled at the kerbside, flexible LDPE is currently only collected at supermarkets for recycling. Even once collected, flexible packaging is hard to recycle, particularly when it is contaminated with food remnants (here). As a result, it is possible that a greater proportion of this new packaging will end up in landfill.
Silver Lining?
In October last year, Coca-Cola announced a partnership with the University of Swansea to develop processes to make its bottle tops from carbon extracted from the atmosphere (here). Coca-Cola claims that doing so could reduce the need for the carbon-intensive processes currently used to produce bottles from virgin plastic. In addition, the carbon captured from the atmosphere will go some way to reducing the company’s net carbon emissions. Clearly good for the polar bears. However, the scheme does nothing to promote the recycling of the bottle tops, nor does it make the bottle tops biodegradable. This particular sustainable initiative does little to alleviate the global plastic pollution crisis.
Switching to the more readily recyclable aluminium can format may seem like a simple work-around. From a plastic pollution standpoint, you would be right. While these cans are fully recyclable, every aluminium can is also lined with a 2 micron thick layer of single-use plastic to keep the drink fresh and to protect the metal. These linings often contain bisphenol A (BPA), a polymer which the EU Chemicals Agency identified as being of “very high concern” back in 2017 for its potential links to infertility, cancer, and diabetes (here and here). Coca-Cola is working on BPA-free linings, but it is unclear if these have been implemented yet.
Plastic Paralysis
This messy web of compromise and knock-on effect would be enough to paralyse even the most ardent eco-warrior into inaction. But that shouldn’t be the take-home message. In every case we have looked at, the end result is better than the status-quo, at least by some measure. Governments and innovators should be praised for taking steps to be more sustainable; but their actions must also be properly interrogated. Nothing can be taken at face value.
More broadly, sustainability is not a straight road that, if travelled, leads to some environmental nirvana. Efforts to solve one environmental problem are often made at the expense of another. This uncomfortable fact is something we need to understand as we navigate the thickening forest of sustainability messaging presented by companies and governments. It will also help us make our own sustainability decisions, however hard they may be.
This article is for general information only. Its content is not a statement of the law on any subject and does not constitute advice. Please contact Reddie & Grose LLP for advice before taking any action in reliance on it.
