Is biodegradable plastic a thing and is it a solution?

Photo from https://www.thenational.ae/lifestyle/can-plant-based-degradable-plastic-solve-the-problem-1.746423

With the recent series of Blue Planet highlighting the magnitude of plastic pollution in our oceans, the general public have taken a greater interest in reducing the plastic we use which is definitely not a bad thing considering the fact that annually eight million tonnes of plastic waste enters our oceans. We as a society are heavily dependant on plastics with even the most eco-friendly of households still throwing away a large amount of plastic. 300 million tonnes of plastic are made each year 10% of which is recycled and just over 40% of plastics only being used once before discarded. Needless to say I get very excited when I see supermarkets seeing biodegradable bin liners and cling film but are these truly environmentally friendly and a permanent solution to our plastic problem?

Firstly, there is a major difference between bioplastic and bio-degadable plastic. Bioplastic are made from completely renewable sources that are biologically based ranging from corn oil to starches. these mean these breakdown naturally in the environment and are 100% compostable as they only contain organic matter. Bio-degradable plastics are still chemical based and still include petroleum based chemicals but have additives that causes a quicker breakdown in the environment. The words photodegradable and oxydegradable are probably a better way to describe these types of plastics. Due to the chemical content, there can still be toxic residue produced meaning these plastics cannot compost as some of the chemical residue can inhibit plant growth, unlike the bioplastics. There have also been reports that bio-degradable plastics still produce micro plastics which are easily ingested by fish and plankton and bioaccumulate up the food chain. It has been reported that in the North Atlantic Ocean, 73% of fish have ingested some form of plastic. Even though these bags do produce less plastic fragments and breakdown quicker than conventional plastic, bioplastic seems to be a better solution to this problem as it stops plastics from entering the ecosystem. However, my view is any option is still better than producing more conventional plastic.

Ignoring these differences, I thought it would be interesting to compare the differences between biodegradable plastics and conventional, petroleum based plastics. The first major advantage is that there is a lower oil consumption, mainly during the manufacturing process. Globally, 8 to 10% of all oil is used to created plastic and in the USA alone, 12 million barrels are used every year just for carrier bags. The lower fossil fuel consumption will lead to less CO2 emissions and subsequently a reduction in the enhanced greenhouse effect. However it does put into question if we would actually be saving oil because it will more than likely still be used, just for other purposes. Despite this, biodegradable plastics produce, on average, 0.8 tons of CO2 during production which is much lower than conventional plastic that produces 3.2 tons. This means the carbon footprint is significantly lower as well as reduced consumption of finite resources. Obviously 100% bioplastics are renewable but biodegradable plastics still require far less oil.

Another key advantage is the quicker rate of decomposition means that landfill and solid waste will be produced. Although there will be a need for composters, this will result in a much cleaner environment and the impact of plastic on biodiversity will be reduced. Considering that annually roughly 10,000 turtles consume carrier bags (as they mistake them for jellyfish) and decline should be accepted and the quicker rate of decomposition should help to reduce this number.

One main disadvantage is more of a social issue (presented by environmental sceptics) and is that it will encourage people to litter. To some extent I agree with this statement because one of the key points of anti litter campaigns is the environment and laziness could kick in. Would all of the general public stop to pick up their rubbish if they knew it would biodegrade? It is also worth pointing out this is still not the solution to litter and our waste problem as even though the residence time is significantly shorter, they still remain in our environment for a long period of time which could still lead to ingestion by wildlife and pother issues such as water pollution.

Another issue is cost. Not only are biodegradable plastics more expensive to make (due to a more complex manufacturing process) but they are also more expensive for consumers. As a student, I can say that my peers would be less likely to spend more on the simple things like bin liners and other single use items. This may also be the same issue for families or others on a budget. Even though they may only be £2 extra, to some that is a meal or a drink out. Given the choice many people will chose the cheaper option and until we can reduce the manufacturing process I fear that petroleum based plastics will still be the norm.

Whilst I believe bio-plastics are the future, the technology is very limited meaning it will be a while before they completely replace 'normal' plastic. They say you vote with your dollar (or pound) so as consumers we need to make small changes to the biodegradable options to encourage supermarkets to invest in bio-plastics.



References -

• https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/02/150212-ocean-debris-plastic-garbage-patches-science/
• https://www.ecowatch.com/22-facts-about-plastic-pollution-and-10-things-we-can-do-about-it-1881885971.html
• https://www.explainthatstuff.com/bioplastics.html
• http://www.craftechind.com/pros-cons-biodegradable-plastic/
• https://plastics.americanchemistry.com/Life-Cycle-Assessment-for-Three-Types-of-Grocery-Bags.pdf

Are Electric Cars the Answer?

Photograph from Financial Tribute, October 2017 -
https://financialtribune.com/articles/auto/74460/china-electric-car-output-to-hit-1m-next-year

With greenhouse gas emissions continuing to rise combined the immanent threat of peak oil many of us are turning to hybrid or electric cars to get us from A to B. With 1.9 million electric cars being used globally in 2017, there has been an increase in both interest and investment in the electric car industry with global car manufacturers creating for 'eco-friendly' electric cars, the most popular of which being the Nissan Leaf. However, is purchasing one of these cars actually reducing your ecological footprint and fossil fuel consumption at all? And are there better alternatives we should be investing in?

Firstly lets look at the total greenhouse gas emissions. Per km, the average petrol run car produces the equivalent of 125g of CO2 whereas the average hybrid produces 82g per km. If your car were to be a pure electric car, the emissions would be even lower averaging at 57g per km. This is mainly due to the fact that no combustion occurs in the engine of an electric car but this doesn't mean they're completely green. Firstly, the average electric car produces 3.3 tonnes more CO2 during the production in comparison to the average for petrol cars. There are also the greenhouse gases produced during electricity generation as during 2015 roughly 66% of electricity was generated using fossil fuels, the so called 'green' cars are still contributing towards the enhanced greenhouse effect. However, there is evidence to suggest that electric cars have the potential to produce 80% less greenhouse gas emissions compared to a petrol car. Personally, I believe this to be possible as it has been proven that electric cars are more energy efficient, but the amount of emissions will vary depending on the nations energy mix as well as the future development of the car batteries. Overall, there are fewer emissions produced by electric cars and they do not produce any exhaust emission resulting in fewer NOx and PM emissions which will help improve air quality, particually in urban areas. Taking all these into account, statistically electric cars are better for the environment in terms of emissions and can be shown to improve air quality.

Despite this fact, fossil fuels still account for the majority of electricity generation with 51% of the UK's energy in 2016 being generated by natural gas and coal. This means that greenhouse gases will still be being produced and with the current geopolitical issues surrounding natural gas, the growth in electric cars could put a strain on our current reserves which can be described as touchy at best, particularly in Ukraine. Although less oil is used for electricity generation, electric cars could lead to a growth in the coal industry and open cast mining in particular has a huge environmental impact. There is large habitat damage which reduces biodiversity and puts a strain on vulnerable species due to the removal of vegetation that is considered 'overburden'. There is also the issue of sulphur dioxide emission, increasing acid rain and the release of toxic trace element polluting the water supply. The increase in demand for electricity has the potential to increase the amount of nuclear power stations as nuclear fission has an extremely high energy density, much higher than that of any current technology. There are many growing concerns as even though there are no greenhouse gas emission and it is recyclable, there is the issue of nuclear waste production and radiation which threaten the health of workers as well as the surrounding area if radioactive dust particles are released into the atmosphere. The unstable nature of radioisotopes means that there is a risk of a nuclear reactor explosion which could mean that occurrences similar to Fukishima and Chernobyl could become more common if the demand for nuclear energy would to increase.

The other main benefits is the economic savings. Most electric cars are tax free which means a saving of between £140 and £2070 annually, depending on how polluting your car is. There is also the reduced maintenance cost as no greenhouse gases and polluting exhaust gases mean there is no need for oil changes and the engine is kept cleaner for longer. There is also the Plug-in Car Grant meaning there is an additional saving with a reduced buying price but it is more than likely this grant will not last long if electric car sales begin to rise.

The biggest con however, is the lack of infrastructure available. With charging points still being relatively uncommon, many people would not feel comfortable using a pure electric car for a long journey. The batteries also have a long charging time meaning that already long journey could take twice as long and drivers will be forced to use the limited charging stations available which could could cost a pretty penny. Without the infrastructure available, it is unlikely many users will see the benefits that are being advertised as many see this as there being an increase risk in breakdown and just as inconvenience especially for those who commute regularly. With a lack of infrastructure personally I cannot see the demand for pure electric cars rising but I feel that hybrid cars are a solution to this problem as this removes the risk of running out of fuel and eliminates that risk of there being no charging stations on route.

Overall, I feel that there are better and more reliable alternatives to pure electric cars that are greener. Personally I feel that with a development in the hydrogen engine (even though it is expensive and not available yet) the future of cars will be more sustainable. This would also combat the major environmental issue of the nickel needed for car batteries and have an even lower ecological footprint.



Resources -

• Energy Sage, Pros and cons of electric cars, September 2018, https://www.energysage.com/electric-vehicles/101/pros-and-cons-electric-cars/
• Sean Clarke, The Gaurdian, How green are electric cars?, December 2017, https://www.theguardian.com/football/ng-interactive/2017/dec/25/how-green-are-electric-cars
• Carbon Footprint Ltd, Electric Vehicles, 2017, https://www.carbonfootprint.com/electric_vehicles.html 
• Energy UK, Electricity Generation, 2018, https://www.energy-uk.org.uk/energy-industry/electricity-generation.html
• Murray Sculluion, Electric cars: pros and cons, Buyacar.co.uk, May 2018, https://www.buyacar.co.uk/cars/economical-cars/electric-cars/651/electric-cars-pros-and-cons

One Week's Worth of Plastic

So recently I've become interested in the zero waste movement and trying to cut down my plastic use. I feel that I do not produce a large amount of waste (seeing as I'm a single person household) and thought it would be interesting to test this and see how much single use plastic I throw away. I feel that this photo doesn't show how large this like actually was which also disappointed me because I truly believed I was making a conscious effort to reduce my plastic but evidently I was wrong. This got me thinking if zero waste is possible considering supermarkets cover everything in a toxic layer of plastic. Thankful I have alternatives, such as the market but for others it may not be affordable or accessible. Seeing as plastic is such a current issue why is it so hard to cut our use of them and who is really responsible for such high plastic consumption?

Obviously, the consumer holds the majority of responsibility because they chose what products they purchase and have the power to chose products with less plastics. However, I do understand the some families will be driven by cost and they may not have the option to chose zero waste options if they are more expensive. I did notice that Aldi (in my opinion) had one of the greatest unnecessary use of plastic and Aldi is known for being one of the more reasonably priced supermarkets. So this made me think if retails are ultimately responsible seeing as the majority of plastic is honestly just unnecessary. Do bananas really need to come wrapped in a single use plastic bag? This goes back to my belief that retailers should be held accountable for the unsustainable use of our finite resources.

Here are a few of the simple steps I have taken to reduce my plastic use:
- Bringing my own reusable cup
- Reusable shopping bags
-Buying plastic alternatives
- Bio degradable bin liners
- Buying loose fruit and veg
- Packing my own lunch in a reusable container

The Cost of Biofuels

With growing greenhouse gas emission being linked to oil consumption, it's no surprise that we as a population are keen to find a more sustainable alternative, the main opinion being that bio-fuel is most likely the best option. With global bio-fuel production growing 137 billion L in 2016, with this figure projected to rise, we really need to ask the question of this is the most sustainable alternative.



So what are bio-fuels?
Bio-fuels are fuels created from organic matter (i.e. biomass and bio-waste) as an alternative to crude oil products with the most common forms being bio-diesel and ethanol. With bio fuels being widely used in developing countries it makes up 10% of global energy consumption and Brazil tops global production with 19.2 million L being produced in 2007. So fuel made from plants, sounds sustainable right? In my opinion this couldn't be further from the truth.

The first issue that should be raised is land use. In the US, annual oil usage is 134 billion gallons and in order to meet this demand 168 million acres of sugarcane would be needed. To me, this seems near impossible to achieve and the complete opposite of sustainable, especially when you factor in the rate the population is growing. With a growing population (that we are currently struggling to feed), shouldn't the land be used to grow food? The lack of agricultural land will result in an increase in food imports, increasing the food miles per person. Won't this just increase fossil fuel use from aircraft and container ships?

Say hypothetically we manage to overcome the fuel over food issue, the loss of biodiversity will be huge. Mass deforestation will have to occur to meet demand, putting already threatened species at risk. With Brazil being the leader in bio-fuel production, would this put even more pressure on the
already shrinking Amazon rain forest considering soy is used for bio-diesel? The Cerrado region has 8-9 million hectares of sugarcane plantation (used for ethanol fuel) which is a main cause for the ecosystem declining by 60%. With WWF claiming up to 10,000 species a year are going extinct, a growing bio-fuel industry would only increase this number as there would be a greater demand for this? Combine this with the growing demand for food and this figure rises even higher. Although I feel ethically we should conserve these areas, humans also benefit from biodiversity both economically and in terms of well-being. We gain food, water, fertile soil and some medicines from natural ecosystems, most of which are highest in ecosystems with the richest biodiversity. These can be sold and exported (e.g. tropical fruit, coffee) increasing income and security for individuals. Biodiversity also has cultural significance and have been linked to better mental health and social relations. Seeing as we gain so much from the natural ecosystems already present, should we not be looking at other alternatives for fuel?

The main benefit to bio-fuels is they are green and cut carbon emission right? Wrong. Yes, I am aware the plants used will act as a carbon sink so it could be argued that the bio-fuels themselves do not produce any additional greenhouse gases. However we need to take into consideration the secondary greenhouse gases produced as a by product of production. The majority of deforestation occurs as a result of 'slash and burn' methods will release a huge quantity of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide and methane (which is more polluting that CO2). There will also be an increase in demand for fertilisers, increasing NO2 levels and ,considering NO2 has a global warming potential around 300 times greater than CO2, this will only amplify the enhanced greenhouse effect. There is also the added cost of fuel from machinery for planting and harvesting as well as the emissions from the production/conversion process which will have to be done on an industrial scale. With all of these considered, it really does question how green bio-fuels really are.



My opinion is that there are other renewable energy sources available that could be developed that are more sustainable. Although I am all for phasing out petrol and diesel, I don't feel that the way to doe this is with biofuels.

Resources -

• International Energy Association, Tracking Progress: Transport biofuels, https://www.iea.org/etp/tracking2017/transportbiofuels/ 
• FAO, Agricultural Outlook 2016, http://www.fao.org/3/a-BO103e.pdf
• WWF, biodiversity, http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/biodiversity/biodiversity/
• BioGrace, Greenhouse gas emissions from biofuels, EU, http://biograce.net/content/biofuelrelatedpolicies/ghgemissionsfrombiofuels
• European Federation for Transport and Environment, Bio-diesels Impact, https://www.transportenvironment.org/press/biodiesel%E2%80%99s-impact-emissions-extra-12m-cars-our-roads-latest-figures-show