In a pioneering breakthrough, researchers have unveiled an innovative technique to make bioplastics from water hyacinth (Pontederia crassipes) to solve pollution and plastic waste. Leveraging the notorious water hyacinth, an invasive aquatic weed causing havoc in waterways, the scientists have demonstrated a circular approach to tackle environmental challenges.
Revolutionizing Bioremediation and Value-Added Products
Water hyacinth is endemic to South America and was introduced to North America and the rest of the world as an ornamental plant. However, once in the environment, they are infamous for choking waterways, causing damage to ecosystems, and causing over $100 million in annual control costs in the U.S. alone. However, the research team at the University of California, Riverside, led by Dr. Zhiwei Hu, discovered a way to harness the potential of this invasive plant for environmental redemption. Their technique involves using water hyacinth to absorb and break down pollutants from wastewater, addressing excessive nutrient pollution, and then converting the biomass into valuable bioplastics and fertilizer.
“We aimed to tackle two environmental problems — excessive nutrient pollution and plastic waste — with one circular solution,” explained Dr. Hu. “And we discovered the resulting bioplastics from water hyacinth perform on par with standard petrochemical plastics in terms of flexibility, durability, and strength.”
This groundbreaking approach provides a sustainable solution to the environmental issues associated with water hyacinths and offers a valuable resource for manufacturing bioplastics from water hyacinths. The researchers are investigating ways to enhance the experimental bioplastics to enable full industrial substitution for materials like polyurethane in consumer goods.
Turning a Troublesome Weed into a Resource
Fueled by excessive nitrogen and phosphorous levels in surface waters, water hyacinth outbreaks have been wreaking havoc on freshwater habitats. Creating bioplastics from water hyacinths and other valuable products could jumpstart more resilient regional bio-manufacturing ecosystems.
“The collaboration between wastewater treatment plants and our water hyacinth bioremediation technique combined with material generation is under exploration,” noted Dr. Hu. “Scaling this will help relieve stress on conventional plastic supply chains while supporting greener, carbon-conscious manufacturing.”
Towards a Greener Future: Scaling and Collaboration
The potential for scaling bioplastics from water hyacinths holds promise for addressing the challenges posed by water hyacinths and contributing to sustainable manufacturing practices. Water hyacinth is an invasive aquatic plant that can cause substantial ecological and economic damage by outcompeting native species, reducing biodiversity, and impeding water flow.
However, researchers have discovered that the fibrous tissues and polymers within water hyacinth can be extracted and used as feedstock for biodegradable plastics. By repurposing these invasive plants into valuable bioplastics, an immense potential exists for transforming an environmental burden into economic opportunity.
The research showcases the environmental benefits and highlights the economic potential of repurposing invasive plants. Scaling up bioplastic production from water hyacinth could provide a renewable, compostable alternative to conventional petroleum-based plastics.
Water hyacinth is an ideal candidate for sustainable bioplastic feedstock as an abundant and fast-growing invasive species requiring no additional land, water, or nutrient resources. If successful, this approach could present an economically viable alternative to conventional plastic production, supporting ecological resilience through invasive plant control and closed-loop manufacturing powered by renewable plant biomass.
Additionally, the bioplastics from water hyacinths offer promising mechanical properties comparable to polyethylene and polypropylene. The research indicates that water hyacinth bioplastics could replace conventional plastics in various applications. By incentivizing large-scale harvesting of invasive plants, bioplastic production can mitigate ecological damage while meeting material demands.
Unlikely Collaborations: A Key to Sustainable Solutions
The collaboration between scientists and troublesome flora exemplifies the potential for finding solutions where they are least expected. By tapping into the disruptive tendencies of invasive plants, the research opens up new possibilities for environmental redemption and industrial symbiosis.
As the world grapples with pollution and plastic waste, bioplastics from water hyacinths offer hope. It showcases the transformative power of unlikely collaborations and the ability to turn environmental challenges into opportunities for innovation and positive change. The researchers believe that such groundbreaking initiatives could pave the way for a greener, more sustainable future in both environmental conservation and manufacturing.
Recently, there has been a growing demand for eco-friendly alternatives to plastic. One promising option is a new type of crab shell bioplastic wrap made from waste grab shells and wood pulp. This new film is flexible, transparent, and can be used to wrap food like plastic wrap. It is also biodegradable and compostable, making it a more sustainable option for food packaging.
Crab Shell BioPlastic Wrap
The new crab shell bioplastic wrap is made by spraying alternating layers of chitin and cellulose fibres sourced from discarded crab shells and wood pulp, respectively, onto a polylactic acid (PLA) base. Chitin is a natural polymer that is found in the exoskeletons of insects and crustaceans. Cellulose is a natural polymer that is found in the cell walls of plants. PLA is a bio-based plastic that is made from renewable resources, such as corn starch.
The new plastic wrap has a number of advantages over traditional plastic wrap. It is made from renewable resources, is biodegradable and compostable, and does not release harmful toxins into the environment. It is also transparent, flexible, and odourless.
The main material that the new plastic wrap is compared to is PET or polyethylene terephthalate. It is one of the most common petroleum-based materials used in transparent packaging, such as vending machines and soft drink bottles. The material showed up to a 67 percent reduction in oxygen permeability compared to some forms of PET. This means that the new plastic wrap could, in theory, keep foods fresher for longer.
In addition to plastic film, PET plastic is used in a variety of applications, including:
Bottles: PET is the most common material used for beverage bottles, such as water, soda, and juice. It is also used for some food packaging, such as salad dressing and oil bottles.
Fibres: PET is used to make a variety of fibres, including polyester, which is used in clothing, carpets, and other textiles.
Films: PET makes various films, including food packaging, insulation, and tapes.
Other applications: PET is also used in various other applications, such as electronics, automotive parts, and construction materials.
The new plastic wrap is still in its early stages of development, but it can potentially be a major breakthrough in the fight against plastic pollution. As the technology continues to develop, it is likely to become more widely available and replace traditional plastic wrap in a number of applications.
Benefits of Using Crab Shell BioPlastic Wrap:
There are a number of benefits to using crab shell bioplastic wrap. These benefits include:
It is made from renewable resources: Eco-friendly plastic wrap is made from renewable resources, such as crab shells and wood pulp. This means that it does not contribute to the depletion of fossil fuels.
It is biodegradable and compostable: Eco-friendly plastic wrap is biodegradable and compostable. This means it will not harm the environment when disposed of.
It does not release harmful toxins into the environment: Eco-friendly plastic wrap does not release harmful toxins into the environment as it decomposes. This means that it is safe for people and animals.
Challenges of Using Crab Shell BioPlastic Wrap:
There are a few challenges to using crab shell bioplastic wrap. These include:
It is still in its early stages of development: Eco-friendly plastic wrap is still in its early stages of development. This means that it is not yet as widely available as traditional plastic wrap.
It can be more expensive than traditional plastic wrap: Eco-friendly plastic wrap can be more expensive than traditional plastic wrap. This is because it is made from renewable resources and is biodegradable.
Overall, eco-friendly plastic wrap is a promising alternative to traditional plastic wrap. It is made from renewable resources, is biodegradable and compostable, and does not release harmful toxins into the environment. As the technology continues to develop, it is likely to become more widely available and to replace traditional plastic wrap in a number of applications.
A tiny wax worm can dissolve plastic pollution with its saliva, new research has found.
Plastic can take up to 1000 years to decompose, clogging up landfill and polluting the ocean.
But climate campaigners have recruited an unlikely new ally in their fight to reduce this waste – wax worms, the moth larvae that infest beehives.
The worm’s saliva contains two enzymes that can degrade polyethylene, a tough material used in plastic bags and bottles.
According to Spanish researchers, one hour’s exposure to the worm’s saliva degrades the material as much as years of weathering.
The impetus for the study came in 2017 when a scientist – and amateur beekeeper – was cleaning out an infested hive.
The larvae had started eating holes in a plastic refuse bag.
“To the best of our knowledge, these enzymes (in the saliva) are the first animal enzymes with this capability, opening the way to potential solutions for plastic waste management through bio-recycling/up-cycling,” the research report – published in Nature this month – reads.
Scientists have discovered that enzymes in wax worm saliva dissolve plastic
How bad is plastic for the planet?
Humans have littered the entire planet with damaging plastic debris.
The hardy material takes millions of years to decompose. Of the 10 billion tonnes of plastic that have ever been created, a whopping 6 billion sits in landfill sites or pollute the environment.
This has a devastating impact on wildlife – more than 90 per cent of the world’s seabirds have plastic in their guts.
Recycling can help mitigate some of the worst effects of plastics. Yet a 2022 report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) found that just 9 per cent of plastic is successfully recycled.
This is where the wax worms come in. They can help dissolve polyethylene, which accounts for roughly 30 per cent of plastic production worldwide.
Wax worms aren’t the only solution that scientists have come up with to combat our ever-growing plastic problem.
Plastic-munching superworms
From eating less meat to buying local ingredients, there are lots of ways to make environmentally friendly food choices. And according to a 2022 Australian study, certain types of worms can adopt an eco-diet too – but not in the way you might think.
Queensland scientists have discovered that the Zophobas morio – a type of beetle larvae commonly known as a superworm – can survive on polystyrene alone.
Over three weeks, the research team fed three groups of superworms different diets.
The worms on the plastic diet acted like “mini recycling plants,” lead author Dr Chris Rinke explains, destroying the plastic with their unique gut enzymes.
They even put on weight in the process.
“[The superworms] shred the polystyrene with their mouths and then fed it to the bacteria in their gut,” says Dr Rinke.
If scientists can work out how to grow the gut enzyme in a lab, they could use it to dissolve plastics on a mass scale, forming these byproducts into bioplastics.
“We can then look into how we can upscale this process to a level required for an entire recycling plant,” said Co-author of the research, PhD candidate Jiarui Sun.
Given that polystyrene accounts for around one-tenth of all non-fibrous plastics, this would be a significant breakthrough.
The plastic wrapping is being removed from 36 of its soft drinks multipacks altogether. The drinks will be sold loose, but the same discount as was offered in wrapped multipacks will be applicable at the checkout. Tesco is keeping the price of each multipack to £1, or charging 50p for individual drinks.
Customers will notice packaging-free multipack buys for own-brand fizzy drinks in cans first. The changes will then be rolled out across energy drinks, water, fruit juices and childrens’ drinks in the autumn. Once the full rollout is complete, Tesco is anticipating a reduction in plastic production and circulation of 45 million pieces every year.
As well as the environmental benefit of the change, Tesco is emphasising how it will be good news for people who want to mix and match drinks. Customers will be able to get the multipack price when purchasing four of any of the drinks included.
“Customers are focused on getting great value right now, but they still want to use less plastic,” said Tesco’s head of packaging development Johnny Neville.
The approach taken to removing multipack wrap from drinks is the same that the supermarket has previously taken with cans. On cans, Tesco has removed multipack wraps from all own-brand products and has worked with Heinz to also phase-out the plastic from its supplied products. That process first began in early 2020.
Elsewhere, Tesco has removed all plastic shrink-wrap from its own-brand beer and cider multipacks, choosing paper-based alternatives. The supermarket stated in February that it removed 500 million pieces of plastic packaging from its own-brand lines during 2021, after one billion pieces were removed during 2019 and 2020.
Tesco’s plastics packaging strategy uses a framework based on the ‘4 Rs’ – removal, reduction, reuse and recycling. Soon after it updated the strategy in 2019, the retailer began the process of assessing all of its plastic packaging formats and changing them in line with this hierarchy; removal should be the first port of call.
Less than two months ago, a report assessing the plastics strategies and progress of 130 of the largest food retailers in Europe found weak progress in general. Co-published by 20 influential environmental NGOs, the report called for more regulation to make these businesses disclose their plastics footprint, after 82% failed to provide this information. The report also cautioned supermarkets against positioning flexible packaging take-back and recycling schemes as a solution and encouraged more investment in reusable and packaging-free options.
Carlsberg has been researching and developing the feasibility of bio-based bottles since 2015 and has today (22 June) confirmed plans to trial 8,000 of its new “Fibre Bottles” across Europe.
The bio-based bottles are fully recyclable and will be placed into the hands of consumers for the first time.
The outer bottle consists of sustainably sourced wood fibre, produced by Paboco, which is working with a variety of companies to develop paper and bio-based bottles.
Each bottle consists of a plant-based polymer lining, developed by Carlsberg’s partner Avantium, that is made from natural raw materials that are compatible with plastic recycling systems. Carlsberg also claims that the bottles can “degrade” naturally, should they fail to be placed into recycling systems.
Carlsberg has analysed the prototype bottles through lifecycle assessment applications. Under its current projections, the company believes that the fibre bottle can achieve a carbon footprint that is 80% lower than current single-use glass bottles.
Carlsberg is aiming for the Fibre Bottle to achieve the same low carbon footprint as the refillable glass bottle, which is currently the best-performing primary packaging when collected and reused.
The bottles will be rolled out across Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, United Kingdom, Poland, Germany and France.
Image: Carlsberg
Carlsberg’s group sustainability director Simon Boas Hoffmeyer said: “The progress made with our new Fibre Bottle is testament to Carlsberg’s pioneering spirit, with a focus on making better products in every sense of the word.
“We’ve been working hard on this project since 2015, and aim to continue to set the industry standard by further improving the bottle’s environmental footprint and product performance. Collaboration is key and, together with our partners, we’re excited to see how research and development into sustainable packaging solutions is now becoming the norm.”
Carlsberg has also revealed that the beer inside the bottle will be more sustainable. In collaboration with barley malt supplier Soufflet, Carlsberg has used barley that has been cultivated using organic and regenerative agricultural practices. Cover crops were introduced in the barley fields to assist with regenerative farming processes.
While progress has been made on the bottle, Carlsberg has confirmed that the bottle cap is not bio-based. This is because of the quality of the material needed for the cap. Carlsberg has moved to ensure that the cap and bottle are fully recyclable.
Going forward, Paboco and Carlsberg are exploring alternative fibre-based bottle caps, with a shareable solution expected in 2023. The Absolut Company, which is also working with Paboco, has confirmed plans to develop and trial a bio-based, fully recyclable bottle cap made from sustainable sources.
Carlsberg will now gain customer and consumer feedback on the bottles, which will be rolled out at select festivals and flagship events, as well as targeted product samplings. The feedback will be used to inform the next version of the design.
Paper bottle community
The progress of the bio-based bottle has been three years in the making. In 2019, Danish brewer Carlsberg unveiled prototypes of the world’s first beer bottles made from recyclable and bio-based materials.
The move kick-started the formation of Paboco, the Paper Bottle Company, which is a joint venture between renewables material company BillerudKorsnäs and plastic bottle manufacturing specialist Alpla.
On the day of its formation, Paboco launched a paper bottle community. The Absolut Company is one of the founding pioneers of this community and has been joined by The Coca-Cola Company, Carlsberg and L’Oréal.
Asbolut has since announced plans to trial of 2,000 paper-based bottle prototypes across Sweden and the UK, to test the viability of paper as an alternative to single-use plastics in beverage applications. The first prototypes were made up of 100% recycled content, with 57% paper and 43% recycled plastic, with the latter used to create a barrier layer for the bottle.
Elsewhere, The Coca-Cola Company – one of the biggest plastic producers in the food and beverage space – confirmed plans to trial 2,000 paper-based bottles in 2021, to test the material’s viability as an alternative to single-use plastics.
Researchers in Indonesia have developed an innovative way to remove microplastics from water without the need for expensive filters.
It works, says Dhany Arifianto, an engineer at the Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember in Surabaya, Indonesia, by passing contaminated water through a pipe, while underwater speakers make the pipe vibrate like the sound board of a guitar.
We think of sound in terms of what we can hear. But to an engineer, it’s merely a series of pressure waves.
Normally, we think of sound in terms of what we hear. But to an engineer, it’s merely a series of pressure waves. When contaminated water passes through the pipe, the water, being liquid, simply transmits the tone. But microplastic particles, being solid, feel the pressure differently, and are driven away from it, Arifianto says.
Surround them by the same tone coming from all sides, and the only place for them to go is the centre of the pipe. When the water emerges from the pipe, this concentrated stream of plastic can then be diverted, while the rest of the water, now cleansed, flows on. “That’s basically the principle of our research,” Arifianto says, “the force created by sound.”
It’s an important development, because microplastics are a growing threat, both to humans and the environment.
Microplastics are tiny fragments of plastic, produced as larger pieces degrade. The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration classifies them as anything smaller than five millimetres in length. “That’s about half the size of a fingernail clipping,” says Charles Moore, founder of Algalita Marine Research and Education, a nonprofit group in Long Beach, California, that is deeply concerned about ocean plastics.
Microplastics are a growing threat, both to humans and the environment.
Moore is a racing-boat captain who first discovered the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, a massive concentration of plastic detritus trapped by currents, when he was sailing from Hawaii to California after a race and found himself surrounded by a sea of plastic trash.
But the big chunks of plastic Moore stumbled across aren’t the only ones polluting the seas. In the ocean, big pieces of plastic break down into smaller ones, which then break down into microplastics, and from there into even smaller bits. “Microplastics don’t stay micro,” Moore says. “They get nano.”
This map shows the location of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. Credit: NOAA.
When that happens, he says, they can lodge in tissues of animals that ingest them (including people). “They don’t just pass through, they get absorbed,” he says. “They pass the blood-brain barrier; they lodge in the placenta. They get into brains and change behavior, because the brain is an electrical organ, and plastics are insulators.”
For example, he says, fish exposed to microplastics don’t go as far or spend as much time looking for food as they normally would.
They also contain xenoestrogens: chemicals that behave like artificial oestrogens. One of these is bisphenol A (BPA), a chemical that is on the State of California’s official list of developmental and reproductive toxicants, based on a review of more than 300 scientific studies of its effect on the female reproductive system.
BPA can also have effects on males – enough that a recent review article in Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology provocatively labeled it an “emerging threat to male fertility.”
Moore adds that it also has behavioral effects, causing male rats to hang out closer to the nest than normal, though it’s not clear if that’s because it is feminising them or simply making them anxious – a factor revealed in other studies.
“They get into brains and change behaviour, because the brain is an electrical organ, and plastics are insulators.”
Charles Moore
Arifianto’s sound-based cleanup system is still in its infancy, but in lab tests that were scheduled to be presented at the December 2021 meeting of the American Acoustical Society, in Seattle, Washington, his team was able to filter out nylon fragments to an efficiency of up to 99%, and other microplastics to an efficiency of up to 95%. Although, he told Cosmos after he was stranded in Indonesia by US COVID protocols, those results are for fresh water, which is easier to work with than seawater. For seawater, he says, his team has to date only achieved 58% efficiency.
Fifty-eight percent may not sound like a lot – and it wouldn’t be if the goal was to purify drinking water. But Arifianto’s target is more ambitious. He wants to help clean up the ocean, starting in the waters offshore from Indonesia. For that, even 50% efficiency would be an enormous benefit.
To do this, he envisions an array of sonic scrubbers deployed across the narrow straits between his country’s main islands, through which currents circulating between the Pacific and Indian oceans offer perfect locations in which to intercept a lot of microplastics, especially those originating from Indonesia.
It sounds crazy, but the straits aren’t all that wide (the Sunda Strait between Java and Sumatra, for example, is only 24 kilometres across at its narrowest point). And plastics float, meaning that the vast majority of them will be in the top five metres of the water column. To collect them, Arifianto envisions an array of sonic pipes stretching across the straits (except for the shipping channels), moored to the bottom so they stay in place and powered by solar cells, wave energy, or perhaps even the temperature gradient from the top to the bottom of their cables. “There is research [on that] in Japan,” he says of the third option.
Arifianto’s target is more ambitious. He wants to help clean up the ocean.
The big problem (other than cost), is likely to be noise pollution. “We are generating audible sound,” he says, “so marine life is going to be affected.”
How badly, he doesn’t know, but the sonic level used in his lab experiments is around 50–60 decibels, which is somewhere between the level of a quiet conversation at home and the buzz of conversation in a busy office. Either way, he says, it’s enough to be “quite audible” and “noticeable at quite a distance”. Figuring out how to deal with that will be a priority in future research.
Moore is skeptical of the idea of trying to clean up the ocean. “It’s just not possible,” he says.
What’s ultimately needed, he believes, is to rethink our use of plastics and become “plastic smart”. Or, as his organisation’s website puts it in a banner headline: “First, we change our relationship with plastic. Then, we change the world.”
Algalita members protesting against ocean plastic pollution. Credit: Algalita.
Arifianto wouldn’t disagree. “I hope I can spread the message that first, we have to stop dumping plastic on the water, whether it’s fresh water or seawater,” he says. “Because it’s going to come back to us in a very harmful way.”
But that doesn’t mean cleanup is useless. “Our work is inspired by the Clean Ocean Project, which put a net in the Pacific to catch ocean garbage.” That was a great idea, he says, but nets can only catch big chunks of plastic. “[So, we thought] how about microplastics?”
Ultimately, Arifianto says, microplastic pollution is a global problem, requiring international efforts. “I hope [our work] is going to reach more people to be aware of the problem and hopefully participate in this global action to clean up.”
Originally published by Cosmos as Sonic cleanup: using sound to capture ocean microplastics
But a study has suggested a new way to deal with plastic waste.
The Swiss research suggests a proof-of-concept idea of a new approach to plastic recycling – inspired by the way nature ‘recycles’ the components of organic polymers present in our environment.
Proteins inside organic polymers are constantly broken down into parts and reassembled into different proteins.
Researcher Simone Gavieri wrote: “A protein is like a string of pearls, where each pearl is an amino acid. Each pearl has a different colour, and the colour-sequence determines the string structure and consequently its properties.
“In nature, protein chains break up into the constituent amino acids and cells put such amino acids back together to form new proteins, that is they create new strings of pearls with a different colour sequence.”
Professor Francesco Stellacci, of EPFL, said: “We selected proteins and divided them up into amino acids. We then put the amino acids into a cell-free biological system that assembled the amino acids back into new proteins with entirely different structures and applications.”
Giaveri and Stellacci successfully transformed silk into a protein used in biomedical technology.
Stellacci said: “Importantly, when you break down and assemble proteins in this way, the quality of the proteins produced is exactly the same of that of a newly-synthesised protein. Indeed, you are building something new.”
Stellacci said it would take time to develop a working method to recycle plastic in this way.
He added: “It will require a radically different mindset. Polymers are strings of pearls, but synthetic polymers are made mostly of pearls all of the same colour and when the colour is different the sequence of colour rarely matters.
“Furthermore, we have no efficient way to assemble synthetic polymers from different colour pearls in a way that controls their sequence.”
Research this year found that thousands of rivers, including smaller ones, are responsible for most of the plastic pollution worldwide.
Previously, scientists believed that 10 large rivers – such as the Yangtze in China – were responsible for the bulk of plastic pollution.
In fact, 1,000 rivers – just 1% of all rivers worldwide – carry most of the plastic to the sea.
The research means that areas like tropical islands are likely to be among the worst polluters, the researchers said.
The study by non-profit organisation The Ocean Cleanup used measurements and modelling to work out that 1,000 rivers worldwide are behind 80% of plastic emissions.
Unilever has introduced new technology to create a paper-based detergent bottle. A prototype is being used for the OMO laundry brand (also known as Persil, Skip & Breeze) and will be introduced in Brazil in 2022.
The new bottles are made of sustainably sourced pulp and can be recycled in the paper waste stream. The inside of the bottle is sprayed with a proprietary coating that repels water, enabling the paper-based packaging to hold liquids.
Unilever wants to roll the paper-based bottles out across its European markets and is piloting the same technology for haircare bottles.
The bottles have been developed through the Pulpex consortium. Last year, drinks manufacturers Diageo and PepsiCo joined Unilever in the formation of Pulpex, with venture management firm Pilot Lite. The Pulpex consortium was set up to produce a variety of plastic-free, single-mould bottles that will be used across the major FMCG companies.
Unilever’s chief research and development officer, Richard Slater, said: “To tackle plastic waste, we need to completely rethink how we design and package products. This requires a drastic change that can only be achieved through industry-wide collaboration.
“Pulpex paper-based bottle technology is an exciting step in the right direction, and we are delighted to be working together to trial this innovation for our products. Innovating with alternative materials is a key part of our sustainable packaging strategy and will play an important role in our commitment to halve our use of virgin plastic materials by 2025.”
edie recently spoke with Slater to discuss how a focus on ‘better, less and no plastic’ is enabling the consumer goods giant to reduce its plastics footprint globally while improving the recyclability of packaging.
In 2019, Unilever, which owns iconic brands such as Dove, Cif and Magnum, set a target to halve its use of virgin plastic by 2025 by reducing plastic packaging by more than 100,000 tonnes, increasing the amount of recycled plastics it uses and collecting and processing more plastic packaging than it sells.
Unilever is the latest corporate to trial paper-based bottle prototypes.
The Coca-Cola Company has been working with other big-name companies, including Absolut, L’Oreal and Carlsberg, to develop the bottles. The designs are being shared through a collaborative company set up to facilitate this joint project, called The Paper Bottle Company (Paboco).
Fellow Paboco member Absolut confirmed plans for its first real-world trials of paper-based bottles. The alcoholic beverage giant has sold 2,000 of the bottles across its Swedish and UK markets since autumn 2020.
Recycling Technologies’ chemical recycling solution, currently used for mixed plastics to be developed to recycle polystyrene
The project’s aim is to create a deeper circular economy for polystyrene
INEOS Styrolution, the global leader in styrenics, and Recycling Technologies, a specialist plastic recycling technology provider announce today the signing of a joint development agreement (JDA) to further advance the development of recycling of polystyrene in Europe. Both companies share the same goals to make plastics a sustainable material. This agreement recognises the commercial value of post-consumer plastic waste to prevent this important resource being incinerated or ending up in landfills.
INEOS Styrolution has extensive knowledge and expertise in polymer science and production backed by its advanced technology and process.
Recycling Technologies possesses extensive knowledge, technology and expertise in the area of building reactors, suitable to thermally recycle mixed plastics using pyrolysis.
Recycling Technologies has already completed a detailed research and trial process with INEOS Styrolution. This activity included scientific research and processing of polystyrene on Recycling Technologies’ Mark II test reactor producing excellent results. Both companies will now further advance this depolymerisation solution based on Recycling Technologies’ fluidised bed technology, currently used for mixed plastics to adapt it for the commercial recycling of polystyrene.
INEOS Styrolution and Recycling Technologies believe depolymerisation has the potential to close the loop, creating a circular economy for polystyrene making the material a more valuable polymer. This recycled polystyrene has the potential to meet the high specifications demanded for food packaging regulations making it attractive to the food industry.
Sven Riechers, Vice President, Business Management, Standard Products, EMEA at INEOS Styrolution comments: “Recycling Technologies’ fluidised bed technology is a very promising technology to drive our joint agenda forward. I am looking forward to a fruitful collaboration in the interest of the environment, our customers and the consumers.”
Adrian Griffiths, CEO & Founder of Recycling Technologies Ltd., adds: “We are delighted to enter this partnership with INEOS Styrolution to develop a commercial solution to recycle polystyrene. This partnership creates the basis for a more circular economy in polystyrene allowing its users to achieve their challenging recycling targets set by all their stakeholders. To date we have focused on the recycling of mixed plastic waste, this initiative will allow us to develop and expand our feedstock recycling technology solutions to address a new and important market, recycling polystyrene.”
About INEOS Styrolution
INEOS Styrolution is the leading global styrenics supplier, with a focus on styrene monomer, polystyrene, ABS Standard and styrenic specialties. With world-class production facilities and more than 90 years of experience, INEOS Styrolution helps its customers succeed by offering innovative and sustainable best-in-class solutions, designed to give them a competitive edge in their markets, and at the same time, help make the circular economy for styrenics a reality. The company provides styrenic applications for many everyday products across a broad range of industries, including automotive, electronics, household, construction, healthcare, packaging and toys/sports/leisure. In 2019, sales were at 5 billion euros. INEOS Styrolution employs approximately 3,600 people and operates 20 production sites in ten countries.
About Recycling Technologies
UK-based company, Recycling Technologies, is on a mission to accelerate the evolution of plastic into a more sustainable material. Currently, 88% of the plastic used in the world is either buried, burned or leaked into the environment [1]. This means that the world recycles only 12% of the 359 million tons of plastic produced each year [2]. Recycling Technologies has developed an innovative technology, the RT7000, which turns hard-to-recycle plastic such as films, bags, laminated plastics into an oil, called Plaxx®, used as a feedstock for new plastic production. The RT7000 is modular and small-scale, designed to fit easily onto existing waste treatment and recycling sites, providing a scalable solution to recycle waste plastic anywhere in the world.
2019 Update: 225 Containers Shipped Per Day to Countries with Poor Waste Management and 120 Million Kg of Carbon Emissions
In just two short years, the world has awoken to the hidden, harsh realities of the plastic waste trade that is called “recycling.” More than 100 investigations and reports have shown serious environmental and social harms in receiving countries. In the recent “Plastic Wars,” FRONTLINE and NPR showed plastic waste from the United States (U.S.) dumped and burned in Indonesian communities in 2019. Making climate change worse, millions of tons of carbon have been emitted in shipping U.S. plastic waste to far frontiers where the reports show that the plastic waste may not have actually been recycled.
Now, a new reason to end export of post-consumer plastic waste has appeared: coronavirus COVID-19. The virus is spread from human contact and was found alive on “a variety of surfaces” of the Diamond Princess cruise ship after 17 days, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Since transit times of sea freight shipments can be less than 17 days and the investigations and reports clearly show that exported post-consumer plastic waste is often manually sorted by poor workers of all ages in unsafe conditions, there is the potential for people in receiving countries to be exposed.
Circulating post-consumer plastic waste around the world doesn’t create the clean economy we need to protect human health and ecosystems. There were more than enough valid reasons to stop the plastic waste trade before the outbreak of the global pandemic in 2020. It is clear now more than ever: the harms and risks far outweigh the perceived benefits of avoiding plastic waste disposal to U.S. landfills. Actions to find markets for discarded plastic materials collected in U.S. communities should not negatively impact communities in other countries.
A Brief Recap
Back in 2017, there was little public understanding of what happens to plastic waste that consumers in industrialized countries put in bins for recycling. Outside of the waste and recycling industry, the U.S. public assumed that safe, clean U.S. factories ground up the plastic and American workers made it into new products. With credit to theNew York Times Opinion video “The Great Recycling Con,” some of us thought it was like a scene from Toy Story. The public didn’t know that the U.S. exported 276,200 shipping containers (1.5 million metric tons) of plastic waste to countries with poor waste management in 2017. As shown in the documentary “Plastic China,” it turns out that our plastic waste was not cleanly or efficiently processed into new plastic products that Americans bought. It was sometimes crudely sorted, shredded and melted by impoverished families in unsafe, unhealthy conditions into low quality plastic that never returned to the U.S. in new products. A waste and recycling expert now states that even before China’s policy changes, “a lot of areas fooled themselves into thinking they were recycling when they were really not.”
Two years ago in 2018, China enacted the National Sword policy restricting plastic waste imports to protect their environment and develop their own domestic recycling capacity. In response, many recyclers moved their operations from China to other countries in Asia, leading to the rise of over two hundred illegal operations in Malaysia. Since exporting plastic waste is a convenient way for the U.S. and other industrialized countries to count plastic waste as “recycled” and avoid disposal costs and impacts at home, there was a significant increase of plastic waste shipments to other countries instead of China. As Malaysia’s Environment Minister stated: “Garbage is traded under the pretext of recycling.” The executive director of the New Haven Solid Waste and Recycling Authority agreed: “Ninety percent of our stuff was going over to China. They were taking all of our plastics, cardboard, paper, you name it. We were in essence shipping them our garbage.”
One year ago, we published “157,000 Shipping Containers of U.S. Plastic Waste Exported to Countries with Poor Waste Management in 2018” to quantify the amount of U.S. plastic waste exports and document the harms that were being caused in other countries. Over the past year, we called for an end to this irresponsible method of handling of our nation’s plastic waste and asked U.S. waste companies and cities to stop exporting it.
Now we report that progress was made in 2019 in reducing U.S. plastic waste exports down to 88,000 shipping containers to countries with poor waste management. Much of the reduction was due to the effective enactment of a plastic waste import ban by India in August 2019. Another positive trend has been an increase in public awareness and opposition to this irresponsible practice and commitments from some waste/recycling companies and communities to stop exporting. But we’ve also learned that the social, environmental and economic harms caused by plastic waste exports in developing countries are even worse than we knew a year ago. In addition, the significant carbon emissions from the sea freight of exporting all U.S. plastic waste around the world have been overlooked while contributing to climate change.
As we started 2020, several nations continued to be flooded with U.S. plastic waste and we had hit a plateau in reducing plastic waste exports. Figure 1 shows that the U.S. exported 436 million kg in 2019 and is still exporting over 5,600 shipping containers (30 million kg) of plastic waste every month to countries with high waste mismanagement. That means about 225 large 20-ft (TEU) shipping containers per day landed in countries without adequate environmental, health, safety and labor laws to be processed by “recyclers” who provide no proof of what happens to the imported plastic waste.
The actual amount of U.S. plastic waste that ends in countries with high waste mismanagement may be even higher because the U.S. exports millions of kgs of plastic waste to countries like Canada and South Korea who may re-export U.S. plastic waste to other countries. Figure 1 shows that as plastic waste exports to India declined, exports to Malaysia dramatically increased, more than tripling from 3 million kg/month in January 2019 to 9.8 million kg/month in December 2019.
Figure 1 – 2019 U.S. Plastic Waste Exports to Countries with High Waste Mismanagement Rates
1.Food chain contamination: As the BBC reported in November 2019: ”the burning of plastic waste in Indonesia, much of which has been sent there by the West, is poisoning the food chain. Environmental group IPEN found, in one East Java village, toxic dioxins in chicken eggs 70 times the level allowed by European safety standards.”
2.Harm to domestic waste collection and recycling system development in countries that need it most. In June 2019, the Guardian USA reported that “a surge in foreign waste shipments is disrupting efforts to handle locally generated plastics” in Turkey, a country with a 16% waste mismanagement and less than 1% recycling rate. As an Istanbul recycler stated: ‘‘I want to tell people in U.S. this: recycle in your own yard. Don’t bring down our income and put us all in danger of hunger.’’ As Malaysia’s Prime Minister stated: “We don’t need your waste because our own waste is enough to give us problems.” The mayor of a Philippine town flooded with plastic waste imports said: “I think we have enough waste in the country to process, reuse and recycle. We don’t need waste from abroad.” In Indonesia, recycling businesses prefer to process imported plastic waste instead of investing in collection of domestic plastic waste. Proving the point, industrialized South Korea recently restricted import of PET bottle plastic waste in order to promote collection and recycling of domestic PET in their own country.
3.Health and safety impacts to workers and communities: The Center for Public Integrity showed evidence of plastic packaging labeled “Made in USA” being burned and dumped in Malaysia. Burning of plastic is causing breathing problems in residents who live nearby facilities in Malaysia. A village in Indonesia is being buried by plastic waste imports. The Guardian reports that in Valenzuela City, Philippines residents blame recycling plants for pungent smells and respiratory illnesses.
4.Global plastic waste shell game: As some countries restrict imports, there are reports of exporters and brokers mislabeling waste and routing it through Hong Kong to avoid traceability. The Malaysian government found that brokers have been falsifying declaration forms by using other Harmonized System (HS) codes to bring in plastic scraps. As the South China Morning Post reported in January 2020, “Hong Kong is one of biggest re-exporters of waste after mainland China stopped importing it.” While Hong Kong itself has very limited plastic recycling capacity, it has become an intermediate port that enables more shipments into Asia, both legal and illegally. The re-export step creates confusion in the traceability of plastic waste. Environmental groups in Hong Kong are calling on authorities to not accept plastic waste that is not destined for reprocessing there. Even when illegal waste is found, returning the waste to the country of origin is problematic. In October 2019, the Basel Action Network reported that illegal U.S. waste shipments that were supposed to be returned to their U.S. senders were instead shipped to India, Thailand, South Korea, and Vietnam. Inspection of paper imports identified illegal plastic waste hidden in the bales.
5.Potential transmission from post-consumer plastic waste: Stored piles of plastic waste and manual sorting of post-consumer waste are creating risks for disease and virus transmission:
a.Plastic waste piles: The Tamil Nadu (India) Health Secretary said that plastic waste is one of the reasons for mosquito breeding that is causing an increasing number of dengue fever cases. The city of Laredo, Texas sent collected recyclable materials directly to landfill over concerns that storage of materials at the recycling center posed a risk to community health.
b.Manual sorting: The CDC advises that people with the coronavirus should not share dishes and drinking glasses and their waste products should be disposed. But the WHO states that “Some people become infected but don’t develop any symptoms and don’t feel unwell.” The WHO also states that coronavirus can live on plastic surfaces for “up to several days.” While a direct link has not yet been proven, it is logical to reason that post-consumer waste may pose a potential health risk to both U.S. and foreign workers that manually sort collected materials from people who are unaware that they have the virus. The risk is particularly acute in poor countries where workers lack health and safety equipment. At the time of this update in early April, concern over coronavirus spread has led to the closure of some municipal recycling curbside and community collection programs to protect workers, including throughout Orange County, California. The situation is still unfolding and the latest news is being reported by Waste Dive.
Tracing the Paths of U.S. Plastic Waste Flows
Figure 2 shows the 2019 exports of plastic waste by origination and destination for the fifteen states with largest amount of plastic waste exports.
California: With ports on the West Coast and a large population, California shipped the most plastic waste to countries with high waste mismanagement: 78 million kg (14,675 TEU shipping containers). This included 6.6 million kg (1233 TEU shipping containers) to Turkey – a nautical distance of 11,301 miles away. The carbon emissions of sea freight of California’s plastic waste exports to Turkey alone are equal to the annual carbon emissions of 364 U.S. cars. (See carbon emissions estimation below).
Northeast States: Prior to the enactment of India’s ban on plastic waste imports on August 30, 2019, states in the Northeast U.S. were shipping millions of kg each month to the country. At the peak in May 2019, New Jersey shipped 3 million kg to India in one month. By December 2019, this declined 87% to 382,000 kg.
Southeast States: While Southeast U.S. states are cited as a top location for U.S. domestic plastic recycling, the U.S. Census Bureau data shows that these states are major exporters of plastic waste to countries with high waste mismanagement rates. Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Alabama and Tennessee exported 80 million kg of plastic waste to countries with poor waste management in 2019 and did not recycle that plastic waste in their states.
Figure 2: Top 15 U.S. States Exporting Plastic Waste to Countries with Poor Waste Management in 2019
The Forgotten Carbon Footprint of Plastic Recycling: Sea Freight and Long-Distance Trucking Emissions
Commonly cited metrics for carbon emission savings from recycling post-consumer plastic compared to using other materials or new plastic overlook two major sources of carbon emissions: sea freight and long-distance trucking. The Association of Plastic Recycler’s Life Cycle Impacts of Postconsumer Recycled Resins study is based on trucking and rail distances less than 500 miles for moving bales to processors.
Figure 3 shows the top 20 U.S. district dispatch ports exporting plastic waste in 2019. The carbon emissions from the sea freight can be credibly estimated through use of an existing sea freight carbon emissions calculator. While long distance trucking of the plastic waste from inland states to dispatch ports also creates carbon emissions, it is not possible to estimate those emissions due to lack of land logistics and route data.
Figure 3: Top 20 U.S. District Dispatch Ports Exporting Plastic Waste in 2019
Sea Freight Emissions: Employing the Kuehne and Nagel Sea Freight Carbon Calculator, the carbon emissions of dispatch port-to-receiving country port were made for the 451 shipping routes in 2019. For example, the carbon emissions of shipping 4,030 shipping containers from Los Angeles to Hong Kong was 3.45 million kg which is equal to the emissions from 750 cars for an entire year (based on the U.S. EPA’s estimate of 4600 kg of CO2/car/year). Overland transport to Canada and Mexico from nearby states and shipments less than 1 full TEU shipping container were excluded from the carbon emissions analysis.
The total sea freight carbon emissions from 2019 U.S. plastic waste exports is estimated to be 120 million kg which is equal to the emissions from 26,000 cars per year. It should be noted that while import trade from Asia enables low cost return shipping via empty containers, the “carbon cost” of adding freight weight to ships is not free or low carbon. Added tonnage requires additional fuel for transporting the freight weight.
Diversion Goals Are Pushing Plastic Waste Exports and Freight Carbon Emissions
U.S. states and the Federal Government have been promoting “diversion” of waste from landfills for decades. The pressure to “divert” plastic waste appears to be a driver for exporting plastic waste since the U.S. lacks domestic plastic reprocessing capacity. Even in states where secure landfills are available with long term capacity at low cost, plastic waste is being trucked long distances to ports and shipped to countries with poor waste management to meet diversion goals. Too often, the media supports the myth that “diversion” is an admirable goal and achievement without evaluating the final fate and destination of the collected waste.
It is time for every state and community to examine the unintended, harmful consequences of their diversion goals and revise legislation to ensure responsible management of each state’s waste. Actions to find markets for discarded plastic materials collected in U.S. communities should not negatively impact communities in other countries. The carbon emissions of waste thousands of miles around the world also cannot be overlooked.
Public Sentiment to Stop Plastic Waste Exports Grows
There has been good news over the past year as some U.S. waste collection companies and communities have ended plastic waste exports to countries with high waste mismanagement. In 2019, Waste Management adopted a corporate policy to ship post-consumer plastics to only North American plastic recyclers/processors. Casella Waste Systems, the nation’s fifth largest waste collection and sortation company, no longer exports residential plastics.
As investigations and reports showed that plastic waste exports were dumped or burned after being shipped thousands of miles, the awareness has led to growing public and professional sentiment against the offshoring practice. As the Cape May Herald reported, “Even staunch advocates of recycling began to question how this made any environmental or economic sense.”
According to chemical industry experts at Independent Commodity Intelligence Services (ICIS), “China is no longer a route for recycling and the expectation is that countries now deal with their own waste.” A representative of the Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) stated: “We’re producing a lot of waste ourselves, and we should take care of it ourselves.”
“We Cannot Turn a Blind Eye to the Hard Truths Being Uncovered”
Faced with the knowledge that their plastic waste could harm communities in other countries, responsible U.S. communities are choosing to stop exports:
Cordova, Alaska: The Copper River Watershed Project has stopped collecting plastic waste because “we cannot turn a blind eye to the hard truths being uncovered. By continuing to recycle plastic, evidence strongly suggests we as a nation may actually do more harm than good because we are simply passing the problem onto countries less fortunate than ours and we are avoiding the inevitable changes society will need to make if we really want to do what is best for the environment.”
Erie, Pennsylvania: The city now instructs residents to only recycle #1 and #2 plastic bottles and jugs, stating: “We cannot collect an item for recycling, unless we have an end user who is willing to purchase and recycle that item. China used to accept most of the #3, 4, 5, and 7 plastics, but it turns out that most of these plastics were not actually being recycled. They were mostly being burned for fuel.”
San Carlos, California: ReThink Waste, a public agency that operates the Shoreway Material Recovery Facility (MRF) in San Carlos, California, publishes a traceable account of the destination of collected plastics and does not export to countries with poor waste management and states that collected plastics #3-7 material is sent to landfill.
Plastic Waste Trade Lacks Transparency and Accountability
But not all waste/recycling companies and communities have stopped exporting plastic waste to countries with poor waste management. Some companies and communities are aware that their waste is being shipped to poor countries and others employ brokers as middlemen in the process. Use of brokers presents a challenge to reducing plastic waste exports to countries with poor waste management because brokers are financially incentivized to maximize shipments and the original waste generators can claim that they don’t know where their waste is going and tell residents that it is “recycled.” Use of brokers to trade waste means that contracts can change hands several times between the source and the destinationwithout accountability. States and cities do not require that brokers or MRFs report the final destination or fate of collected materials, including final destination countries for plastic waste exports.
As a representative from a major waste company stated, “Plastics that are sold to brokers have the potential to be sent overseas, as well as to Canada, as the broker has the ability to do what they see fit with the material.” While some brokers may operate legitimate export businesses, the lack of transparency and accountability creates an open playing field for unethical business practices.
In the comprehensive survey of the 367 MRFs in the U.S. performed for Greenpeace’s Circular Claims Fall Flat report, some MRFs stated that materials collected in their communities are shipped to countries with poor waste management or to brokers. For example:
San Diego, California: City representative states about local recycler: “If they can’t find a domestic buyer for a bale of cardboard or plastic bottles, they’re going look anywhere else in the world — Vietnam, Indonesia, other parts of Asia.”
Charlotte, North Carolina: The local newspaper reports that “the county and its contractor, Republic Services, sometimes give away bales of plastic and mixed paper or even pay countries to take them.” The county’s solid waste director states: “I have no guarantee what someone will do with it once they get it. Where it goes is a bit out of our control sometimes. If it stays in this country, we know it will be taken care of. When it goes to a different country, they aren’t as environmentally safe. Whether they recycle it or landfill it or burn it, we don’t know.”
Illegal Plastic Waste Trade Grows
Reports of illegal plastic waste trade and unethical business practices grew in 2019. By January 2020, Malaysia announced that it had closed more than 200 illegal recycling factories. Flooded with plastic waste exports for more than a year, countries increased inspection and returned more plastic waste to exporting countries. But the lack of traceability made this difficult to do. Throughout Asia, there are many ports of entry that make it difficult for countries to monitor what is actually in shipping containers.
Examples of illegal trade activity and return of plastic waste:
“It’s Our Waste”: Other Countries Take Responsibility
There are compelling reasons for the U.S. and other countries to stop exporting plastic to countries with poor waste management, including reducing plastic pollution to the ocean and freight carbon emissions, increasing the focus on development of domestic waste management and recycling systems in developing countries and spurring domestic innovations to responsibly address plastic use and waste.
Other industrialized countries faced with similar plastic waste and export challenges are moving to take responsibility for their plastic waste:
United Kingdom (UK): The Environmental Bill 2020 would restrict exports of plastic waste to non-OECD countries for recycling.
European Union (EU) Circular Economy Plan: Announced on March 11, 2020, the plan aims to ”restrict exports of waste that cause negative environmental and health impacts in third countries by focusing on countries of destination, problematic waste streams and operations.”
Basel Amendment agreed to by 184 countries: In May 2019, the Parties (countries) to the United Nations Basel Convention adopted the Plastics Waste Amendment to “to specifically include plastic waste in a legally-binding framework which will make global trade in plastic waste more transparent and better regulated.” According to the head of the UN organization that administers the Basel Convention, the Basel Amendment is intended to keep more recycling of plastic scrap in the countries where it is created.
Canada: In February 2020, a bill was introduced to the House of Commons to prohibit the export of non-recyclable plastic waste from Canada to foreign countries. The Member of Parliament introducing the bill stated: “We have the means and capability to ensure the proper disposal of plastic waste right here in our own country, and we shouldn’t be exporting it for someone else to deal with.” But while Canada is a signatory to the Basel Convention, the country recently requested extra time to comply with the treaty, which will be enforced starting 2021.
The Responsible Response is to Stop Offshoring Plastic Waste
Now that the curtain has been pulled back and the harms of plastic waste exports have been exposed, the responsible response is to stop. While exporting may help U.S. communities meet “diversion goals” and avoid the problem and cost of disposing their plastic waste to landfill or incineration, there’s no denying that we’re offshoring the problem, harming other countries and making a carbon intensive, long distance contribution to the plastic pollution in the ocean we share.
Firm and effective bans are not yet in place in many countries and the end of harmful plastic waste imports is not certain as illegal trade flourishes. We cannot expect other countries to restrict and inspect our harmful plastic waste exports or expect them to stop the illegal waste trade at the receiving end. After conducting an investigation of exports to Malaysia, Greenpeace Italy stated: “We know that only a small number of containers leaving Italian ports are properly checked. A civilised country cannot close its eyes and dump the problem on a less developed nation.” In the Philippines, Greenpeace and EcoWaste Coalition identified policy loopholes in Philippine laws as an enabler of illegal and ‘legitimized’ waste trade.
The most effective way to stop the harmful and illegal plastic waste trade is to stop loading U.S. plastic waste onto ships for export.
While the U.S. and other countries have been exporting plastic waste to countries which are ill-equipped to manage it, those same countries are being blamed as the leading polluters of plastics to the ocean. The Save Our Seas 2.0 Bill largely blames Asian countries for plastic pollution to the ocean and does nothing to stop plastic waste exports to those countries. The recent addition of some types of plastic waste to the Basel Convention will not stop the flow of U.S. plastic waste to countries who are not equipped to safely and securely manage it due to illegal waste trade and non-ratification and opposition by the current U.S. Federal Administration. As the Guardian reported in May 2019, “The US is not a party to the convention so it did not have a vote, but attendees at the meeting said the country argued against the change, saying officials didn’t understand the repercussions it would have on the plastic waste trade.”
The Right SOS: Stop Our Ships
There now isproposed legislation in the U.S. Congress to stop plastic waste exports to countries with poor waste management. The plastic waste export restrictions in the “Break Free From Plastic Pollution Act of 2020,” championed by Senator Udall and Representative Lowenthal, are a major step towards taking responsibility for our plastic waste and reducing long-distance plastic pollution to the ocean, as well as here at home. Representative Lowenthal stated that “he was especially proud the bill would prevent plastic waste being exported to less developed countries where it ends up in landfills and waterways, harming human health and endangering wildlife.”
The harms of plastic waste exports to other countries and sea freight carbon emissions are proven. Our response is a measure of our integrity in dealing other countries and our true concern for the ocean and climate. At the federal, state and local levels, we must bring an end to irresponsible, damaging plastic waste exports.
More Facts & Figures: U.S. Plastic Waste Exports from 2010 to 2019
Table 1 summarizes the latest trends in the U.S. plastic waste export and recent news related to plastic waste import bans.
Table 1 – Trends in U.S. Plastic Waste Exports and Latest News
Jan Dell, PE, is an Independent Engineer and Founder of The Last Beach Cleanup. Jan has worked with companies in diverse industries to implement sustainable business practices in their operations, communities and supply chains in more than 40 countries including throughout Asia. Named a 2019 National Geographic Explorer. Appointed by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Jan was the Vice Chair of the U.S. Federal Advisory Committee on the Sustained National Climate Assessment in 2016-2017.Send her an email here.
