Trash island in the Caribbean

From the Report of Minderoo Foundation, May 18, 2021

The contribution of individual plastic producers to the plastic waste crisis has been exposed for the first time, as a new report shows that just 20 companies produce over 50 per cent of all single-use plastic. Top financial institutions enabling plastic waste generation were also identified.

Analysis released today reveals the source and true scale of the global plastic waste crisis. It shows just 20 companies – supported by a small group of financial backers – are responsible for producing over 50 per cent of ‘throwaway’ single-use plastic that ends up as waste worldwide1. Published by Minderoo Foundation, the ‘Plastic Waste Makers Index’ has been developed with partners including Wood Mackenzie, and experts from the London School of Economics and Stockholm Environment Institute among others.

Made almost exclusively from fossil fuels, single-use plastics are the most commonly discarded type of plastic, too frequently becoming pollution. Environmental campaigners have previously placed the blame for plastic waste at the feet of packaged goods brands such as PepsiCo and Coca-Cola.

But now a small group of petrochemical companies who manufacture ‘polymers’ – the building block of plastics – is revealed as the source of the crisis:
>>> Twenty companies are the source of half of all single-use plastic thrown away globally.
>>> ExxonMobil tops the list – contributing 5.9 million tonnes to global plastic waste – closely followed by US chemicals company Dow and China’s Sinopec.
>>> One hundred companies are behind 90 per cent of global single-use plastic production.

Close to 60 per cent of the commercial finance funding single-use production comes from just 20 global banks. A total of US$30 billion of loans from these institutions – including Barclays, HSBC and Bank of America among others – has gone to the sector since 2011.

Twenty asset managers – led by US companies Vanguard Group, BlackRock and Capital Group – hold over US$300 billion worth of shares in the parent companies of single-use plastic polymer producers. Of this, US$10 billion is directly linked to single-use polymer production.

“The plastification of our oceans and the warming of our planet are amongst the greatest threats humanity and nature have ever confronted,” explains Dr Andrew Forrest AO, Chairman and Co-Founder, Minderoo Foundation. “Global efforts will not be enough to reverse this crisis unless government, business and financial leaders act in our children’s and grandchildren’s interests.

“This means: stop making new plastic and start using recycled plastic waste, it means re-allocate capital from virgin producers to those using recycled materials, and importantly, it means redesign plastic so it does no harm and is compostable, so like every other element, it returns to its original molecules, not nano-plastics. And we must act now. Because while we bicker, the oceans are getting trashed with plastic and the environment is getting destroyed by global warming,” Dr Forrest said.

“Tracing the root causes of the plastic waste crisis empowers us to help solve it,” adds Al Gore, former US Vice President. “The trajectories of the climate crisis and the plastic waste crisis are strikingly similar and increasingly intertwined. As awareness of the toll of plastic pollution has grown, the petrochemical industry has told us it’s our own fault and has directed attention toward behavior change from end-users of these products, rather than addressing the problem at its source.”

Minderoo Foundation, author of the report, is calling for:
>>> Petrochemicals companies to be required to disclose their ‘plastic waste footprint’ and commit to transitioning away from fossil fuels towards circular models of plastic production;
>>> Banks and investors to shift capital, investments and finance away from companies producing new fossil-fuel-based virgin plastic production, to companies using recycled plastic feedstocks.

Scale of Inaction and Growing Crisis — The report also lays bare the scale of inaction by plastic producers and how they are compounding the existing throwaway plastic waste crisis:
>>> A 30 per cent increase in global throwaway plastic production is projected over the next five years;
>>> This growth in production will lead to an extra three trillion items of throwaway plastic waste by 2025 alone;
>>> Recycled plastic or feedstocks account for no more than 2 per cent of global single-use plastic production, meaning 98 per cent of these plastics are produced from fuels;
>>> Plastic producers score woefully in a best practice assessment of the move to circular-based forms of production necessary in addressing the crisis;
>>> The global economic downturn caused by the coronavirus pandemic pushed down the price of oil, making fossil-fuel-based single-use plastics even more financially attractive.

“Our reliance on oil and gas is not only fuelling climate change, but as the primary material used in the production of throwaway plastics is also devastating our oceans,” explains Sam Fankhauser, Professor of Climate Change Economics and Policy at the Smith School, University of Oxford and Former Director, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, London School of Economics.

“It is critically important petrochemical companies move towards circular-economy-based alternatives if we are going to successfully tackle these interlinked crises. The benefits on offer are transformative and hugely beneficial not only for our environment and ecosystems, but also the communities living with the realities of plastic pollution.”

“This is the first-time the financial and material flows of single-use plastic production have been mapped globally and traced back to their source,” said Toby Gardner, Senior Research Fellow, Stockholm Environment Institute. “Revealing the sheer scale of the global crisis we have on our hands, its critical we break the pattern of inaction. You can’t manage what you can’t measure. Building on the analysis published today, this is why it is so important the small group of companies and banks that dominate global production of throwaway plastics begin to disclose their own data.”

More than 130 million metric tonnes of single-use plastic ended up as waste in 2019 – almost all of which is burned, buried in landfill, or discarded directly into the environment. Nineteen pre cent of this waste – some 25 million metric tonnes – became pollution, dumped in oceans or on land3. This is equivalent to the weight of over 23,000 blue whales, signifying the scale of the crisis, which is already having devastating ecological, social and environmental consequences.

Waste Per Person — The analysis shows which countries are the biggest contributors to the throwaway plastics crisis. Australia and the United States respectively produce the greatest amounts of single-use plastic waste per head of pollution, at more than 50 kg per person per year. In comparison, the average person in China – the largest producer of single-use plastic by volume – produces 18 kg of single-use plastic waste per year; in India that figure is as low as 4 kg per year.

The Plastic Waste-Makers Index is a project of Minderoo Foundation’s No Plastic Waste initiative, which aims to create a world without plastic pollution – a truly circular plastics economy, where fossil fuels are no longer used to produce plastics.

Plastic code for reuse applications

From an Article by Dr. Kate Raynes – Goldie, Scitech News (Australia), October 23, 2020

Hands up if you grew up thinking that recycling plastic waste is key to saving the environment. It turns out that for decades the recyclability of plastics was grossly oversold by the plastics industry.

The creation of this recycling ‘myth’ is why, despite 30 years of being diligent recyclers, we have things like the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. In fact, we’ve only recycled 9% of all the plastics we’ve ever produced. And, our use of plastics is still increasing every year.

The reality of the situation is that recycling plastics is actually really hard and expensive. so, how did we get to a world full of plastic?

Triangle of mistruths on plastic products

The myth created around plastic recycling has been one of simplicity. We look for the familiar triangle arrows, then pop the waste in the recycling bin so it can be reused. But the true purpose of those triangles has been misunderstood by the general public ever since their invention in the 1980s.

These triangles were actually created by the plastics industry and, according to a report provided to them in July 1993, were creating “unrealistic expectations” about what could be recycled. But they decided to keep using the codes.

Which is why many people still believe that these triangular symbols (also known as a resin identifier code or RIC) means something is recyclable.

But according to the American Society for Testing and Materials International (ASTM) – which controls the RIC system – the numbered triangles “are not recycle codes“. In fact, they weren’t created for the general public at all. They were made for the post-consumer plastic industry.

Polystyrene cups are about as far from recyclable as you can get – but they still have a resin code. In other words, the symbols make it easier to sort the different types of plastics, some of which cannot be recycled – depending on the recycling facility.

“Unfortunately, just placing your plastic into the recycling bin doesn’t mean it will get recycled,” says Lara Camilla Pinho. She is an architect and lecturer at the UWA School of Design who is researching novel uses of plastic waste.

“The recycling system is complicated and often dictated by market demand. Not all plastic is recyclable. We cannot recycle plastic bags or straws for example.”

Behind the scenes — So, what makes recycling plastics so difficult?

“Essentially, there are two types of plastics – thermoplastics and thermosets. While thermoplastics can be re-melted and re-molded, thermosets contain cross-linked polymers that cannot be separated meaning they cannot be recycled,” says Lara.

“Even thermoplastics have a limit to the amount of times we can recycle them, as each time they are recycled they downgrade in quality.” Even when plastics are recyclable, it is often more costly than simply making new plastics.

Sugar, seaweed and mushrooms — If the conventional recycling system isn’t working, what else can we do with all the plastic we’ve created?

Lara is looking for ways to add value to recycled plastics such as using it in the design and development of architectural products. She hopes to use these architectural products to help underserved communities that are disproportionately affected by plastic waste.

In addition to recycling, we also need to find ways to reduce our use of virgin petroleum-based plastics.

Bioplastic is one such product that has been getting a lot of hype over the last few years. And although they’re better than petroleum-based plastics, bioplastics also come with their own set of challenges.

“There are already a lot of bio-based alternatives to plastic, such as bagasse – a byproduct of sugar cane processing,” says Lara.

View Larger — Sugarcane-based plastics can be used to make big designs – and small ones too. LEGO released their first plant-based bricks in 2018.

Mycelium, a type of fungi we most often associate with mushrooms, are also providing an interesting plastic alternative. “In the field of architecture, mycelium is starting to be used as an alternative to plastic insulation, but also as compostable packaging and bricks,” says Lara. “The bricks take around five days to make and are strong, durable, water resistant and compostable at the end of their use.” Hy-Fi Tower, created by The Living, is an example of a building made from these bricks.

Growing up, we thought we were going to save the world by recycling. But only 9% of all plastics we’ve produced have been recycled, and our use of plastics is still increasing every year. What went wrong?

And finally, there’s seaweed — “[Seaweed is] cheap and can reproduce itself quickly without fertilisers. In architecture, there is use for seaweed as an alternative to plastic insulation but also as cladding, ” says Lara.

More money, more problems — While all these alternatives are great, the main cause of our plastic dilemma is not scientific or technological, but economic.

As long as it remains cheaper to create new plastics from fossil fuels rather than from bioplastics or from recycling, we’re going to be stuck with plastic garbage islands floating in our oceans.

The true cost to our health and our environment has yet to be included in the equation. But once it is, maybe that is when the real shift will happen.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

See also: War on plastic waste faces setback as cost of recycled material soars, Jillian Ambrose, The Guardian, October 13, 2019

For years the cost of making plastic products from recycled flakes was cheaper than relying on virgin plastics made using fossil fuels, meaning the sustainable option was an economic option too. But according to experts it is now cheaper for major manufacturers to use new plastic. (Horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracking have lowered fossil energy price, being practiced widely with minimal environmental regulation.)

Plastic refuse is accumulating at an alarming rate

From an Article by Jared Paben, Resource Recycling, October 21, 2020

Three virgin plastics companies recently announced developments in the area of chemical recycling. The following are summaries of the news from Chevron Phillips Chemical, SABIC and BASF.

Commercial-scale milestone: Chevron Phillips Chemical announced that it successfully completed its first U.S. commercial-scale production of polyethylene (PE) derived from chemically recycled mixed plastics.

“We are exceptionally proud to be the first company to announce production of a circular polyethylene on this scale in the U.S.,” Jim Becker, vice president of polymers and sustainability for the company, stated in a press release. “The successful production run marks a huge step for CPChem on our path to being a world leader in producing circular polymers.”

The company is now looking to scale up the use of the pyrolysis technology, as well as achieve certification for the new PE through the International Sustainability and Carbon Certification Plus (ISCC Plus) mass-balance methodology. Upon certification, Chevron Phillips Chemical intends to market the plastic under the trade name Marlex Anew Circular Polyethylene.

Recycled-content tube: Three companies are collaborating to bring chemically recycled plastic into beauty product packaging. Virgin plastics producer SABIC will supply recycled resin derived from post-consumer mixed plastics, part of the company’s TRUCIRCLE portfolio of chemically recycled polyolefins. Albéa will convert the plastic into tubes for Estée Lauder Companies (ELC) products; specifically, the tubes will hold Origins skincare brand products. According to a press release, the package is expected to hit store shelves in 2021.

In August, SABIC announced that its TRUCIRCLE recycled polypropylene (PP), produced via a pyrolysis process, was being used in Magnum brand ice cream tubs. Over 7 million of the recycled-content tubs are slated to be rolled out across Europe this year.

From tires to recycled plastics: BASF’s ChemCycling project has focused on using a pyrolysis technology to process difficult-to-recycle mixed plastics into chemicals for use in new plastics. Now, BASF is supporting the use of pyrolysis on scrap tires.

The global chemical company plans to invest 16 million euros (nearly $19 million) in Pyrum Innovations, a German company using pyrolysis on scrap tires. BASF plans to use the resulting pyrolysis oil to produce recycled-content plastic products for customers, alongside its existing recycled-content offerings derived from scrap plastics.

“With the investment, we have taken another significant step towards establishing a broad supply base for pyrolysis oil and towards offering our customers products based on chemically recycled plastic waste on a commercial scale,” Hartwig Michels, president of BASF’s Petrochemicals division, stated in a press release.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

New plastic pyrolysis capacity planned in the United States

From an Article by Craig Bettenhausen, Chemical & Engineering News, Vol 98, Issue 27, July 10, 2020

Plants by Braven Environmental and Encina May take in a combined 225,000 metric tons of waste plastic per year

Two new plastic pyrolysis plants are in the works in the US that could add a new recycling option for plastic trash and increase the supply of some commodity chemicals.

In pyrolysis, a feedstock such as waste plastic is heated in a low-oxygen environment and, instead of burning, breaks down into a mix of simpler hydrocarbons. Tweaking the reaction conditions—such as temperature, pressure, or use of a catalyst—allows operators to get various product mixtures.

The pyrolysis firm Encina is finishing designs with engineers at Worley for a plant that will take in about 160,000 metric tons (t) of waste plastic per year and yield 90,000 t of BTX, a mixture of benzene, toluene, and xylenes normally produced from oil. The firms say the designs are modular, which will let them add capacity later. This will be Encina’s first plant, and founder David Schwedel says the company has four more in the planning stages globally.

Braven Environmental is planning a plant in central Virginia that will take in 65,000 t of plastic per year and produce 50 million L of a diesel-like hydrocarbon blend, according to Michael Moreno, the company’s chief operating officer. The $32 million plant will also produce syngas, which it will burn to fuel the process. The firm expects to create 52 permanent jobs at the site when it opens in mid-2021.

Environmental advocates debate the merits of pyrolysis, citing concerns about scalability, toxic by-products, and derailment of a transition away from single-use plastics. Promoters of such chemical recycling methods counter that they save energy and help keep plastics out of landfills and waterways.

Plastics pollution is severe and getting worse

From an Article by Michael Tanenbaum, Philly Voice, December 12, 2019

Philadelphia City Council passed a bill Thursday that will ban retailers from providing customers with single-use plastic bags, ending a 12-year effort to enact the environmentally minded legislation.

The ban spearheaded by Councilman Mark Squilla, who pushed for it previously on four separate occasions, would take effect July 2, 2020, pending the final signature from Mayor Jim Kenney.

Businesses affected include supermarkets, convenience stores, service stations, department stores, dollar stores, clothing stores, restaurants, food trucks, farmers’ markets, dry cleaners, and delivery services

Despite an attempt to also impose a 15-cent fee for all other single-use bags – such as paper and heavier plastic bags – provided by businesses to customers, that provision was ditched when other council members argued it would disproportionately impact the city’s poorer residents.

The law is intended to both reduce waste and save the city money. Philadelphia spends between $9 million and $12 million a year cleaning plastic bag waste from the streets, sewers, and bodies of water.

“Philadelphia uses approximately 1 billion single-use bags every year, and most of those are plastic,” said Joseph Otis Minott, executive director of Clean Air Council. “These bags litter our communities and cost taxpayers millions of dollars every year to clean up. Although this bill is long overdue and misses a very important fee component, we are very pleased that City Council has finally started to address the chronic, and devastating litter problems the city faces.”

Environmental groups withdrew support for the bill when the 15-cent fee was dropped, claiming the ban would be far less effective if customers faced no penalty for not bringing a reusable bag.

The bill does include a study on the outcome of the program to determine whether it needs to be adjusted, potentially by adding a fee at a future date.

“By banning single-use plastic retail bags, Philadelphia has joined hundreds of other communities across the country in sending a message that we realize there is a plastic problem,” Minott added. “We hope that this law will be amended in the next session to include a fee on all other bags.”

The Three (3) R’s for Our Green World

Plastics are an overwhelming problem for society

Editorial from Morgantown Dominion Post, August 16, 2019

More than 50 years later, we are still reckoning with that one word.
In an iconic scene in the 1968 film, “The Graduate,” a brief dialogue ensues between the recent college graduate and a family friend at his graduation party.

Mr. McGuire: “I want to say one word to you. Just one word.” Benjamin: “Yes, sir.” Mr. McGuire: “Are you listening?” Benjamin: “Yes, I am.” Mr. McGuire: “Plastics.”

Many have over-analyzed that exchange from a score of perspectives but we’re going to keep it simple here. The future in 1968 was going to be in the booming plastics industry and Benjamin should look to a career in it.

Half a century later we’re wallowing, no, drowning in that industry’s pollution from the high seas to the lowlands.

To its credit, the Monongalia County Commission took the initiative on plastic recycling years ago and has just kept going with it. Ditto for the city of Morgantown contracting with its trash hauler to provide for single-stream recycling.

However, we’re losing the battle on plastics recycling and look to be harming the environment in our efforts. For instance, the good done by the recycling roundups and pickups is often undercut by carbon emissions of the hundreds of vehicles those tons of plastics arrive in. Not to mention the water used to clean them for recycling.

We recently read that despite Lane County, Ore.’s successful roundups it decided to turn over plastic recycling to its residents. After volunteers undergo training to serve as community collectors their goal is to collect two cubic yards of plastic before scheduling a date to drop it off for recycling.

Two cubic yards is approximately the size of a pickup truck bed or a jumbo refrigerator. Collectors may be neighbors, businesses, churches, civic groups or others. Yet, even if that program’s goal of 300 collectors is met it still won’t stem the tide of plastic needing to be recycled.

It’s estimated worldwide, only about 14% or 15% of all plastic is recycled. The problem it would seem is our society generates far more plastic than it needs. We realize there might be bigger issues than goals to collect No. 2, 4 and 5 plastic bottles, jugs, tubs and lids.

But any policies and programs to endlessly recycle single-use cutlery, bottles and straws is delusional without a new approach to this issue. Aiming for no-plastic use for the vast majority of people is unrealistic.

However, we can all do more to overcome our plastics’ addiction. Clearly, consumers may not know where to start, but if everyone takes some responsibility for this issue and government leads we can do better.

If we use less plastics to begin with and collect more of it we can make a greater difference. Otherwise, that one word 50 years from today may just spell, disaster.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

See also: “Marium, The Dugong Who Charmed Thailand, Dies After Ingesting Plastic,” Amy Held, NPR, August 17, 2019

https://www.npr.org/2019/08/17/752042032/marium-the-dugong-that-charmed-thailand-dies-after-ingesting-plastic/