Recycle more.... or...

Warning issued over biodegradable plastics

I know precious little about plastics. I do know a little about science, a fair bit about consumers, and more than I ever want to about the various bodies that 'serve' us.

So in I chip:

As one currently embroiled as a consumer advocate (a little more than a little knowledge and just trying to share what 'we' 'might' know to plan for the future in an informed manner) in a now epic debate that's raging between advocates of composting and Food Waste disposers, this piece piqued my interest.

Because I have long wondered what the poor old consumer is to make of the various reuse and recycling options they have, now all the more complex by things being compostable, biodegradable, etc. Or not. And there seems a real issue here between what goes in a bin and ticks a box and what may or may not actually result in more waste and/or greenhouse gasses.

I really, really... really hope that we will soon see some logical logistical measures put in place by business, government and LAs that will not only work together to help the planet, but also can be shared with the public in ways they can a) understand and b) engage with secure that they are doing what's best.

I'm virtually ecstatic!

I have been meaning to write about my feelings (hey, it's Friday) on the subject of e-publication for a while, and now I have had the perfect prompt *(see below).

PRW is an excellent resource for folks like me (however in it's full monty title of Plastics and Rubber Weekly, a majority of Junkk.com readers may pass). It not only is an easy read, but very topical. And I get pots of good leads. I've even been known to write in.

And, as you'll gather, on top of a nifty way of making a silk purse from a sow's ear they have come up with a cunning marketing wheeze: an e-version.

I already get several. And some I pay for. In a few cases quite a lot. The Ecologist is one. Trouble is, having got to my annual renewal reminder, I have realised I have never read it... online at least. On a few occasions I have even bought a copy at the newsstand - on top.

It may just be me, but I can't get into them. I think part of it is that when I work 12 hrs a day in front of a screen anyway, adding to that eye and RSI-strain a second further with my background reading is not an appealing prospect. Because I have to remain rooted here to do it.

No deckchair in the sun. No quick few pages in the small room (excuse the image that may have created). No catch up in the train (I don't do power-exec lappy space hogging).

I know it's not perhaps very eco to admit it, but it just doesn't appeal in comparison to having a page that I can fold, tear or highlighter-pen... and then stuff in my pocket... to hand. Sorry.

So I'll look forward to my copy in the mail (while the GPO are still in business - at which point I may have no choice, and trees may breathe CO2 easier). But meantime this is a nice complement.

*Unfortunately, the postal strike is likely to delay the delivery of your copy of PRW magazine this week.

However, you can view the latest edition right now by clicking here.

The full issue is available on-line.

The digital edition is exactly the same as the printed issue, which will reach readers next week when the strike ends.

You say cucumbers...

I had to write to the editor of PRW about an editorial (raising an evident conundrum - no obvious search link) headed The Cucumber Question, based, no doubt, on this Naked cucumbers go on trial at the UK's Co-Op

If only in light of this.

Swords & Ploughshares

It must be hard for those who see livelihoods threatened not to see some issues in terms of potential conflict: BPF to battle green backlash

So I am pleased to see the tone being adopted here.

There is no doubt in my mind that there is much in the world of plastics that may not be 'necessary', and hence contribute poorly in an environmental sense. And yes, packaging is copping more than its fair share, again probably with some deserved. But I am trying to assess if all I see and hear in the media, from politicians, pressure groups and, indeed, the media, is warranted in the greater enviROI scheme of things.

For good or ill, we are talking about a fundamental part of a capitalist, consumerist society, along with everything else that may be associated with buying and selling, from design to advertising. So when it comes to what is, and isn't 'necessary', I find the icons of evil that get selected to be so far very, well, selective.

And way too much onus is being placed on the consumer to effect change using hype, spin and, in many cases guilt or threat. I guess you guys may not like where I am going with this, but a lot is simply at the wrong end. If a 4x4 or a bottle of water (which may have been missed in some areas of late if 'banned') is legal to make and market, if they are so bad why on earth is there all this official effort to stop 'us' buying them only once they arrive on the shelves?

So maybe this can work to 'your' advantage. Once you get to legislative measures the argument has to be a bit more sensible, with all pros and cons evaluated. Which will eliminate the ill-informed, the knee-jerk and the bandwagon jumpers. Having been to such as Total Packaging recently and been persuaded by some of the arguments and explanations, I think the public has a right, and definitely need to know the reasoning behind many choices to help them arrive at sensible purchase decisions. But there are limits. I live in dread of the CD-Rom that will come with my crisp packet to explain its health, food miles and carbon consequences in every format accepted by all parties just to tick a few more boxes.

One simple fact that struck me from the show was simple economics. Why would anyone spend all this money if they didn't have to (ok, there are truly excessive design/materials to encourage purchase - who decides, though, what is and isn't... in any industry?). But also there is such as the enviROI of food waste versus that of the packaging to prevent it. Or the cost to consumer, and planet, of damaged rejects.

Green cannot, and should not be viewed just in terms of black and white.

All concerned have a duty to make the decisions behind what is done with good reason clear. And, I would suggest, not as an industry on the defensive but, as a brand that is, as you suggest... confident, but concerned. But make sure the public believes you are concerned for the right reasons or, as with Live Earth, the message can be undermined by the credibility of some messengers.

While I have mixed views on plastic bags (and certainly on all that is wrong with the massively wasteful bits of media-nonsense such as the 'I am not a plastic bag' effort), they should be, as you say, a pretty trivial issue. Yet you need to be careful how you defend them. If they stand up environmentally in comparison to other options then I would like to hear the justification. And would be more impressed if it's not just on a point of principle, but rationality. If the argument strays into whether it's 'worth it' as the money is mostly from overseas then one moves to murkier waters.

The environment is not a problem to be dealt with; it is an opportunity to embrace. And to secure your industry's part in protecting the future you need to demonstrate how integral it is to every aspect of consumer life... and that there is a commitment to mitigating the potential downsides.

I'm not so sure where the fault (opportunity?) lies, but speaking as a consumer I for one am astounded at how woeful the provision of adequate mechanisms of proactive disposal (primarily via recycling, or my personal favourite for obvious reasons: reuse!) still are, or indeed adequate information on how, when and where to do anything 're' properly. Despite the squillions so far blown on campaigns that may better have been first invested in infrastructure. So yes... be part of the solution and be seen to take a lead in making sense of all this... and embarrass into silence, or support, those who would seek easy capital as a consequence.

Stick with the facts, but remember we do live in a world where these get dressed up for 'sale' just as a slickly by all protagonists as a box of Ferrero Rocher (I am sure every Lib Dem's and Independent journalist's partner looks forward to their bag of boiled sweets on Valentines as they pop off for a weekend in Barcelona). So I look forward to some interesting times ahead.

The Cola Challenge

Another industry magazine that I like and hence surf on occasion for tidbits is Plastics & Rubber Weekly. And this caught my attention: Coca-Cola launches lightweighted PET bottle in UK

Especially this: Potential resin saving of 700tpa, says company.

But....

While I think all can agree that just about every aspect of this story is a very good thing, I do have to ask if (and if so, where the money went, and/or gets refunded) it was necessary for the trials to be partly funded by the Waste and Resources Action Programme (Wrap).

I also wonder if I could sign up to Wrap’s Courtauld Commitment to 'reduce packaging waste'. Then there would be 26 signatories to the agreement. Any why not? If money is there for the taking, you'd be silly not to get your hands on it.

So I don't blame Coke at all for going for it. But I just have to wonder, again, why it is necessary to use public money to fund multi-billion turnover (and profit) companies to help them reduce their manufacturing costs, when surely it is in their own interests to do so?

And thus allow money from the public purse to go to areas where there is perhaps more need, and less self-interest at work.

I'm sure there's a good reason, but I'll guess I'll have to keep looking, and make a note to ask £200kpa execs at the top of this generous quango the next time I see them.

I decided to see if I could get some answers:

Great news. This should be a real positive to share with all the negatives we get these days on (over)packaging.
Quick question. What does ‘partially funded’ mean? It seems unlikely that a multi-billion $/£ company needs to be funded at all, especially when, beyond savings on waste the future savings of raw material costs must surely be vast. How’s it work?
Where does this money come from? And were does it go to? How much are we talking about? Is it secret? I’m interested in the provenance chain.
And is this on the same basis of a similar thing I heard about a while ago with Heinz, and Tescos, for instance, which seemed to cause some concern at the time as to why two such vast profit making enterprises were being subsidised from the public purse. I’m presuming they’ll be paying it back which, in view of the manufacturing raw materials spared, should not be too, long, right?
Signing to this Agreement seems a good way to get oodles of public funds to play with, and hence can anyone get some money by signing it?
I’d really like to know as it seems very generous, and it would be great to have some too.