Search for any green Service

Find green products from around the world in one place

Testing, testing: how responding to climate change will make our world quieter

Testing, testing: how responding to climate change will make our world quieter

Our hearing organs start to develop at two or three weeks of gestation, and as we continue to develop in the womb we can hear well enough to react to sound. Sight may well be listed second in influential academic Marshall McLuhan’s ordering of the human senses into a hierarchy of importance yet traditionally, industrial design has focused on sight and touch, especially for expensive items. But, as we learn more about the design of infrastructure required for a net-zero emissions future, audio is becoming increasingly important in how we design, and for whom.

A more sustainable future means that our world will likely become quieter as energy-efficient technology has the potential to reduce noise impacts.

In most machines or systems, noise reflects a loss of energy in the system – energy being wasted rather than put to productive use. As we focus on reducing emissions and increasing energy efficiency, there is potential to achieve a quieter environment.

Creating power with solar panels or hydrogen instead of boilers and steam turbines; powering vehicles with batteries or hydrogen fuel cells rather than gasoline or diesel engines; electrifying rail lines to take diesel-electric locomotives out of service, and developing high-efficiency electric motors to make commercial processes (from air conditioning to manufacturing) whisper-quiet.

What are the ramifications of a quieter world as communities transition to net zero emissions, and how does that impact design? Could the noisiness of your factory floor or your suburb become a measure of how sustainable you are as a business or a community?

 

Do we need more or less noise?

This question is in the eyes (or ears) of the beholder. Rachel Carson’s seminal text ‘Silent Spring’, responsible for kicking off the modern environmental movement, argues that a healthy natural environment should be ‘noisy’ with natural life.

However, COVID-19 has revealed a mixed reaction to the relative silence that so many people experience from working remotely. For some, prolonged silence and isolation made them desperate for interaction with others; some introverts thrived in lockdown and never want to return to an office; others craved solitude after the noise of home-schooling kids, while trying to work.

Anecdotally, people are seeking out silence, as evidenced by the trend of city folks moving to regional centres. There is also the increasing use of noise-cancelling headphones, allowing people to curate their own audio environment, regardless of what sounds are actually around them.

The influence of increased or decreased noise on creativity, mental health and reflectiveness is probably down to the individual, although there are questions to be asked as we design this new audio world. Sound-masking systems conceal noise in new offices, but what if these became more common? Would organisations lose creativity if eavesdropping was lost? Research shows eavesdropping actually makes us better people. Could plugged-in employees result in decreased stress at the expense of less creativity and social engagement?

Hearing is a primal threat detector for humans and design has compensated for quieter noise in the past: for instance, the first cars were preceded by a person ringing a bell as a warning. Silence can be a problem, which is why electric trams and cable cars traditionally ring a bell to alert pedestrians to their approach, and why pushbikes have a bell on their handlebars.

Now, electric vehicle makers have synthetic sounds generated from their quiet motors – to make pedestrians aware that cars are around. While this has already become a legal requirement in the EU, other automakers are looking for workarounds: for example, Ford reportedly wants to include an ‘off switch’ for its line-up of police vehicles, presumably so officials can sneak up on suspected criminals.

 

How audio design can improve sustainable outcomes

Audio design in infrastructure could become a way to solve problems or achieve better sustainability outcomes. Look at start-up Ping Services, the creators of a stethoscope for monitoring the ‘health’ of wind turbines. Acoustic technology ‘listens’ to turbine blades to monitor their condition and helps predict degradation without early retirement, a common issue afflicting wind turbines.

The idea of creating an ‘acoustic fingerprint’ of well-maintained operating equipment, as a measure of equipment performance, has multiple applications across many industries such as mining and manufacturing. Ping, a small Adelaide start-up, is reaping the benefits of being an innovative first mover in using noise, or absence of it, as a measure of efficiency.

This movement towards less noise could change our property and settlement patterns, reducing urban sprawl. For instance, real estate next to busy roads may not necessarily lose value in a future of predominantly electric vehicles, because the reduced noise and reduced particulate emissions (no engines, less brake wear) will alleviate the impact on an amenity that a busy roadway would normally have.

A school in the Netherlands has placed acoustics at the heart of design under the premise that less noise equals less stress, illness and lower absentee rates. More than 30 000 m² of stone wool tiles and a long wall of reindeer moss supports the ceiling in creating a comfortable acoustical environment. Acoustic panels themselves are becoming more sustainable with options now made from chemical-free pulp.

The opportunities a net-zero future brings for design are endless. As roadways become narrower due to automated, quieter and non-emitting vehicles, the physical environment can be integrated further into design. Increased vegetation has the power to muffle harsh noise and absorb carbon dioxide. Just as rooftop gardens and flower walls are now commonplace, the best of Mother Nature’s audio like the calming benefits of birdsong could be incorporated on a broader scale.

 

Designing for silence

An electrified economy could potentially see increased audio pollution restrictions (for example, construction site noise limits, airport curfews) to reduce intrusions on people’s audio space. In the same way that smog and pollution were controlled in response to the industrial revolution’s excesses, the transition to a net-zero economy could include further control of public sound.

New regulations around use of drones already protect local wildlife, and sound laws have been enacted by governments and councils to account for technology that causes ambient public noise to recede from electrification and high-efficiency motors.

Not all of these will be reactions against sound: already, pleasant background sounds are actively introduced in places where people need to be calm, such as medical settings, or synthetic engine noise is simulated in electric vehicles to create a sportier sound upon acceleration.

Incorporating the design of sound into the built environment from the beginning is the best way to achieve a quieter environment, and avoids subjective tastes dictated by a few for the group. Already there are moves to design quiet spaces while, at the same time, we are warned of the psychological dangers of silence. Between the two extremes is a design challenge for perhaps audio-neutrality – more likely to be attained if we start with human need.

Decarbonising economies to combat climate change is a complex journey and won’t happen overnight, and neither will our response to lowering noise levels. Instead of the future soundscape being managed as an afterthought, more value could be obtained if we consider it early in the design phase, especially of workplaces and educational institutions, as a driver of qualitative measures such as engagement, fulfilment and purpose.

Sound is important to us. It is not only one of the first senses to develop, but it is also widely-believed to be the last sense people retain before they lose consciousness forever. While COVID-19 has provided an unexpected context in which to consider the audio environment we want to live, work and play in, climate change is providing ongoing opportunities to return to the sounds of nature.

You’ll have to keep listening to find out what a net-zero emissions future sounds like. Perhaps it might not only be smelling the roses, but also hearing the birds chirp. Wouldn’t that be a wonderful world!

Aurecon’s award-winning blog, Just Imagine provides a glimpse into the future for curious readers, exploring ideas that are probable, possible and for the imagination. This post originally appeared on Aurecon’s Just Imagine blog. Get access to the latest blog posts as soon as they are published by subscribing to the blog.

 


 

Source Eco News AU

Mono-material packaging: A recycler’s wish

Mono-material packaging: A recycler’s wish

Recycling closes the loop for a circular economy, but the more complicated the packaging design, the lower the chance of it being recycled. Could mono-material packaging be the answer to this problem?

 

‘Circular economy’ has become the buzzword for businesses around the world, regardless of industry. Oftentimes, the phrase is merely used for marketing purposes, with little attention paid to its concepts and principles.

There are numerous players involved in the lifecycle of one product. From raw materials suppliers and logistics companies, to manufacturers, distributors, consumers, and disposal, it may not be sufficient when only one of the players upstream creates a ‘circular product’ without involving the other players downstream to ensure that the loop can truly be closed.

Over the centuries, the human-environment relationship has grown from a circular one to a linear one. In the past, what our ancestors used to take from nature was returned to nature at the end of its life.

 

No material is as difficult to differentiate as plastic.

 

From a material scientist’s perspective, civilisation developed along with newly synthesised materials that allowed technology to flourish—materials that nature is unable to assimilate in a short period of time. Nevertheless, learning to be better stewards of materials can drive our economy back to a circular one.

For the packaging industry, the answer may lie in mono-materials.

Packaging serves a necessary function—protecting or preserving the product it contains. The material chosen for the packaging has to satisfy this basic functionality. But as products get increasingly sophisticated, more functionalities of packaging are needed and a single material may not be able to satisfy all of the requirements.

Laminations, coatings and additives went into the material formulation to achieve the packaging solution. The need for labels to print the necessary product information and branding further complicated the design. This is how a simple packaging purely used to contain a product can become a concoction of differing materials.

Recycling cannot deal with mixed materials, even for plastics.

No material is as difficult to differentiate as plastic. A transparent plastic can be polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyvinyl chloride (PVC) or even general-purpose polystyrene (PS).

But these plastics cannot be mechanically recycled together and have to be separated, if not the quality of the recycled PET (which has a higher recycled value) will be downgraded or even contaminated beyond reusability.

The process of mining iron comes from extracting iron ores since iron does not exist as a pure element on earth. This requires energy input to purify the ores to obtain pure iron before it can be further used in the manufacturing of products.

The reverse engineering of products (such as recycling) into individual materials follows the same process. Recycling could be an energy-intensive activity, but it helps to close the loop for a circular economy in packaging products.

However, the more complicated a packaging design, the more effort is needed.

Unfortunately, this segregation often comes from human intervention in developing countries before the actual recycling can take place. If packaging consists of only one material, these preliminary steps can be avoided. The pathway to recycling will also be shorter and more efficient.

For the multi-layered materials that cannot be separated, either simply because it is not economically viable or not intervenable manually, the easiest method would be to take the inseparable materials and downcycle them into a composite particle board.

The only way to know if this mixture of inseparable materials is durable or even toxic is through testing it, but the composite particle board is thereafter rendered non-recyclable.

Is it possible to standardise the transparent plastic type to use for takeaways?

When it comes to determining which plastics to use for packaging, retailers are simply spoiled for choice. But when it comes to service packaging (e.g. takeaway containers), do we really need to look beyond PET and PP?

In the resin code, 7 refers to ‘others’, yet this one number encompasses many different types of plastics, and even biodegradable plastics are currently listed under ‘7’.

To determine if the plastic is recyclable or not, a consumer must know what the resin code represents, and which types of plastic can be collected—which is dependent on the local recycling infrastructure. Such in-depth knowledge may fly over the face of most consumers.

Thus, standardising which mono-material to use for a certain type of packaging—especially those with low functionality such as single-use packaging—may be the key to ensure a truly circular economy.

Plastics have great flexibility when it comes to engineering the material into the required packaging properties. Yet it is the same flexibility that results in the proliferation of plastic types that goes beyond the 7 resin identification codes.

While certain industries like automobiles or electronics would benefit from advanced plastics, comparatively, packaging for everyday items does not require the same level of complexity.

With a thorough understanding of the recycling process and infrastructure, much can be done by the packaging design engineers to mindfully create packaging for ease of recycling.

And mono-material can be a great place to start.

 


 

By Yvonne Lin

Source: Eco Business

Wood, metal, paper and fabric can help cut climate-harming plastics

Wood, metal, paper and fabric can help cut climate-harming plastics

Replacing plastics used in buildings with metal, wood, ceramics and glass, turning to paper and fabric for packaging, and boosting recycling rates could slash planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, researchers said on Monday.

A mixture of substitution, changes in business models and consumer behaviour, and producing more plastics without using fossil fuels could halve global plastic consumption and cut emissions from plastics by more than half, they said.

Otherwise, emissions from plastics are expected to increase threefold by 2050, jeopardising a goal of keeping global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, said a new report from the London-based Overseas Development Institute.

“Although plastics permeate our lives and every corner of our planet, it is technically possible to largely phase them out,” the report said.

 

When somebody buys a plastic product, they don’t actually generate emissions when they’re using it. But there’s emissions embodied in the product from the previous stages. – Andrew Scott, research fellow, Overseas Development Institute

 

Lead researcher Andrew Scott told the Thomson Reuters Foundation that all but 1-2 per cent of plastics are made from fossil fuels, principally oil and gas, with the emissions produced at different stages of the value chain.

“When somebody buys a plastic product, they don’t actually generate emissions when they’re using it. But there’s emissions embodied in the product from the previous stages,” he said, adding emissions could also come from discarded plastics.

The largest use of plastic is for packaging, accounting for 36 per cent of total output in 2015, followed by construction at 16 per cent, the report said.

However, switching to non-plastic alternatives that are currently available, such as wood and metal, could reduce the use of plastics in the construction industry by 95 per cent, it said.

A combination of regulation on single-use plastics and changes in consumer behaviour could cut plastic consumption by 78 per cent in the packaging sector, it added.

There is also much room for improvement with recycling as only about 20 per cent of plastic waste is recycled today, the report noted.

It also looked at the automotive and electrical and electronic equipment sectors, which together with construction and packaging make up more than 60 per cent of plastic use, said Scott.

North America, Europe and East Asia consume almost two-thirds of the world’s plastics, the report said.

Globally, per-capita consumption of plastics is 47 kg (103.6 lb) per year, but in Africa and South Asia, it is less than 10 kg per year.

A report last week from the Changing Markets Foundation criticised consumer giants such as Colgate-Palmolive, Danone, Nestlé and Unilever for failing to meet their pledges to use less plastic in their products.

It also said they had lobbied against and undermined efforts to tackle plastic pollution, a charge the companies denied.

This story was published with permission from Thomson Reuters Foundation, the charitable arm of Thomson Reuters, that covers humanitarian news, climate change, resilience, women’s rights, trafficking and property rights. Visit http://news.trust.org/climate.

 


 

By 

Source: Eco-Business

Coke, Nestlé and Pepsi top plastic polluter audit again as green groups slam recyclable packaging as ‘false solution’.

Coke, Nestlé and Pepsi top plastic polluter audit again as green groups slam recyclable packaging as ‘false solution’.

Food and beverage firms Coca-Cola, Nestlé, and PepsiCo are the world’s biggest plastic polluters, a study of litter found on beaches, streets, homes, and parks in 50 countries has revealed.

The same firms have topped the global plastic polluter audit, conducted by a collective of environmental groups running cleanup operations, for the second year in succession.

This is despite initiatives the multi-national consumer goods companies have launched to address the chronic plastic pollution problem they have contributed to.

Coca-Cola has launched recyclable bottles made entirely from renewable plant-based materials, aiming to use it in all its packaging by next year. Nestlé has a plan to make all of its packaging recyclable or reusable by 2025, while Pepsi has pledged to develop bottles made from renewable resources.

 

Coke uses PlantBottle packaging, which are bottles made from plants, saves the equivalent annual emissions of more than 315,000 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide, Coke estimates.
Image: Coca-Cola

 

But these measures do not address the root of the problem – the overuse of plastic by consumer goods firms – and so have not affected their standing in the global litter audit, the campaigners noted.

“Commitments by corporations like Coca-Cola, Nestlé, and PepsiCo to address the crisis unfortunately continue to rely on false solutions like replacing plastic with paper or bioplastics and relying more heavily on a broken global recycling system,” said Abigail Aguilar, plastic campaign coordinator for Greenpeace Southeast Asia, the lead group for the Break Free From Plastic campaign, in a media briefing on Wednesday.

“We call them false solutions because they perpetuate the throwaway culture that caused the plastic pollution crisis, and will do nothing to prevent these brands from being named the top polluters again in the future.”

As part of Break Free From Plastic, a global movement of non-governmental organisations advocating against new plastic production, Greenpeace orchestrated 4,384 cleanups in over 50 countries from August 1 to September 30, picking up 476,423 pieces of plastic. Almost half of the plastic waste was marked with a clear consumer brand.

Other companies identified in the study included Mondelez International, Unilever, Procter & Gamble, Colgate-Palmolive, Philip Morris International and Perfetti van Melle.

 

The world’s top 10 biggest plastic polluters in 2019.
Image: Break Free From Plastic.

 

Von Hernandez, global coordinator of Break Free from Plastic, called on corporations to reduce their production of single-use plastic, instead of using recycling or recyclable packaging as a solution.

He cited a 2017 study that found that 8.3 billion metric tonnes of plastic trash have been produced since 1950, but only 9 per cent of it has been recycled globally.

“Even if all plastic packaging were collected to be recycled, it would only be down-cycled or transformed into another inferior product that inevitably becomes waste, ending up in incinerators and landfill, polluting our oceans,” Hernandez said.

“Over the next 30 years, the amount of plastic waste is set to quadruple,” he warned.

A call for ‘alternative delivery systems’

Environmentalists urged the consumer goods companies to invest in different ways to package their products that do not create pollution.

 

unilever hair refilling station

Unilever’s hair refilling station in a mall at the Makati Central Business District in the Philippines.
Image: Unilever

 

Unilever, which ranked as the fifth largest polluter in the audit, launched a shampoo and conditioner refilling station in three high-traffic malls in Metro Manila, Philippines in March.

The hair and skincare giant, which owns brands such as Dove, Sunsilk, and Lux, sells many of its products in single-use plastic sachets in developing countries like the Philippines and Indonesia to make its products more affordable.

While environmentalists lauded Unilever’s intiative, they said consumers in the lower income bracket who mostly use single-use sachets will not use the refilling stations.

“It’s a step in the right direction, but malls especially in the central business district are not that accessible to the common Filipino. In our dialogue with the companies, we told them that if they are to invest and introduce an alternative [to plastics], they need to position them where they are easily accesible, like in sari-sari (retail) stores or public markets,” Aguilar said.

“Solutions must be affordable, simple, convenient, durable, and non-toxic,” he said.

 


Source: www.eco-business.com