Polymers may be described as bio-based when they are derived from biomass (plant source), rather than traditional petro-based polymers from fossil fuels, which may also be biodegradable and compostable, leading to the misuse of the term bio-plastic.
Polyethylene made from ethanol derived from sugar is now available through mainstream polymer suppliers. The properties of this type of polythene are identical to polyethylene derived from fossil fuels and it can be processed and recycled in exactly the same way, the only difference being the origin of the feedstock.
We were recently invited to tender for the supply of a large quantity of recycling sacks made from renewable polythene. Because we have always promoted the use of recycled materials in our refuse and recycling sacks, we asked whether we could quote for bags made from 100% recycled polythene. The reply was ‘no, they must be made of polythene from renewable sources’.
Tender
Our dilemma then; should we eschew our principles to meet the specification and ‘waste’ virgin material (availability of recycled renewable polythene is scarce to non-existent) or decline to tender? Sticking to our principles we had no choice, but it did make me think. While bio-based polymers may have their place for certain products, are we now in danger of overturning the established waste hierarchy to displace recycled material with virgin polymer. Moreover, what are the environmental and ethical credentials of bio-polymers?
I identified a study comparing environmental and commercial impacts of bio-based ethanol versus traditional fossil-fuels and another paper which warns against the use of bio-fuels (from bio-ethanol) because of the social and environmental damage caused by land grabs in third world countries where land used for food production is being turned to cash crops for bio-fuel.
“Environmental and financial implications of ethanol as a bio-ethylene feedstock versus as a transportation fuel”, a 2015 study by Jon McKechnie, University of Nottingham, and Heather Maclean, University of Toronto concludes that there are savings to GHG emissions by using bio-ethanol.
Oxfam
A 2009 paper by Oxfam shows how concerns about land and food rights around the world, both major campaigning priorities for the aid and development charity, are closely linked to EU biofuel mandates.
In 2009, EU governments committed to sourcing 10% of transport energy from renewable sources by 2020: they are set to meet this target almost exclusively using biofuels made from food crops.
- Land grabs: Countries with poor protection of land rights are magnets for land deals – most of which are to grow crops that can be used for biofuels – which means that many such deals are concluded without the consent of affected communities.
- Production: If the land used to produce biofuels for the EU in 2008 had been used to produce wheat and maize instead, it could have fed 127 million people for the entire year.
- Demand: On top of this, biofuel mandates are an incredible inelastic source of demand for food crops; by 2020, EU biofuel mandates alone could push up the price of some foods by as much as 36%.
- Climate change: Biofuel mandates are not even a solution to climate change; modelling shows that ploughing up carbon sinks to meet EU biofuel mandates could be as bad for the environment as putting an extra 26 million cars on Europe’s roads.
The report makes this statement:
‘It is completely unacceptable that we are burning food in our petrol tanks while poor families go hungry and millions are being pushed off their land. EU governments have it within their power to make a difference to the lives of millions of hungry people. It’s time to scrap EU biofuel mandates.’
And some key recommendations
- Oxfam calls on EU governments to scrap biofuels mandates immediately.
- Technically, so that they are not in contravention of EU law, this means that the EU 2020 target for 10% renewable energy in transport must also be scrapped when it comes up for review in 2014.
- In 2012, EU governments have started discussing 2030 targets for renewable energy – it is crucial that no new target is set for renewable energy in transport as this is likely to be met almost entirely using biofuels.
Unintended
All of which leaves us where?
Leaving aside financial considerations of the McKechnie and Maclean study it seems to me that while there may be savings in GHG emissions resulting from the use of bio-polymers compared with fossil fuel derived polymers, there are other environmental considerations particularly in third world countries. Add to this the concerns about displacement of land previously used for food production in the same countries; there is a real danger of the developed world creating some unintended consequences, ironically brought about in the name of the environment.
One thing I am sure about, we should not be displacing recycled polythene with virgin polythene, renewable or otherwise.
Related links
Register for free to comment