REview - Movie - 'Trashed' - More clever than wise

That last line is not a critique of the movie.

It's a quote from it:

"The difference between the clever man and the wise man is that the clever man can extricate himself from difficult and intricate situations that the wise man would never have gotten into in the first place."

Author: Jewish proverb

I had been invited to our local Ross theatre (rediscovering what a great little venue it is), by a local media baron, and approached with some misgivings, not least because I also dragged along 'she who must be entertained'.

Me because I have not had the best experiences with such documentaries, and on the missus' behalf because, well, if you are not a bit of an eco-activist, the subject matter does not exactly equate to the latest Twilight. And one and a half hrs plus on Trash talk is a fair old whack.

But I need not have worried. That time passed quickly and was well spent... for both of us, and I think the rest of the audience, which I was thrilled to discover included 'Mrs. Green' of My Zero Waste and her family. Their presence in part being explained by her having a featured role as a zero waste advocate.

However, in doing justice to an objective review, it is not a movie that will be everyone's idea of a good night out, or to their tastes. I think you would need to be interested in the topic, and happy to see your money going to such an exercise in necessary awareness.

But even if it doesn't appeal as a movie experience, I'd say catching it if and when it is on TV, or when the DVD is released, is a worthy consideration.

There's stuff worth knowing, and it is presented well.

The script is solid, and not preachy, and with a presenter/VO the calibre of Jeremy Irons, and music backdrop by Vangelis, the audio-visual experience is top notch.

Though the full HD impact of a 40m wall of rubbish calving into the sea at the East end of the Med is pretty revolting.

This was one of the biggest out of control land dumps there is, at Sidon, and though vile had an awesomely fascinating aspect to it too. It was like those rock strata you see science types getting excited about to explain dinosaur extinctions or tsunamis.

Which is apt, because in a way it is a waste mountain version of the cr*p 'we' throw out over the decades... centuries. No further back than that, as it was pointed out that it's really only in the last hundred years that we moved from 'natural' materials that degraded 'naturally' on disposal to those that do not, if at all. Or, if they do, into something not nice at all.

This was a thread throughout, and was indeed an area that informed even me, when I thought I was quite on top of the messy aspects of human imposition on this planet.

The expert 'talking heads' referred to were very good, and unlike many advocates came across as reasoned and well-informed. And realistic.

But what they had to share, and show, was not too palatable, even as one sits in a comfy cinema in the well-regulated West. Lured into a false sense on security by 3rd world horror stories, I was unprepared to what was closer to home for comfort.

And Mr. Irons was a great guide in complement. Not too earnest if passionate, and even cynical and self-mocking with a wicked sense of humour on occasion to lighten what too easily could become a voyage into darkness if not careful.

But careful we need to be. I was pretty aware of many of the issues around biodegradability (and will need to revisit my open-ended investigation on this topic that I started a long time ago), but the microparticle 'soup' that plastics which enter the eco-system create was really horrifying to be reminded about. And while 'witches' knickers bags are the stuff of many an M&S/Daily Mail PR stunt, this is an area I am much more concerned about.

Also incineration, especially the so-called newly-rebranded 'Energy from waste' variety.

The theory is good, and the intentions of some noble. But I now have serious outstanding concerns on the practice... and the intentions of others.

One look at the news these days shows the 'authorities' are not always smart or to be trusted, especially when in thrall of big business or under fiscal pressures.

The movie spent a lot of time on what comes out of the chimney, and it's not pretty if the thing is not set up right and run right... including changing filters that are needed to meet safety levels, but get bunged up pronto and need replacing a lot... at vast cost.

I was reminded of our 'bagless' Dyson vacuum, that was to 'save' us a fortune, but whose EPA filter ran up such a replacement bill we got rid of it. So too with such facilities. They cost a lot to build, and more to run. And if the money gets tight, they either run dirty or they shut down.

And if they don't shut down and run dirty... you don't want to be near. And by 'near', I mean on the planet. Like plastic micro/nano particles, what goes up, or down, or in the water, goes around... everywhere.

A large chunk of what is in there that shouldn't be are dioxins, and these are not nice. At all.

A distressing part of the narrative was necessary, and this was a visit to Vietnam, to see the results of dioxin contamination as a result of the Agent Orange spraying during the war there.

Now this was concentrated hugely (and there may be other factors), but even after all this time there seems no doubt that this stuff is not great to get into the food chain, and especially by the time it works up to apex predators... like us. 

There was a very nasty scene in a pathology lab in Vietnam to illustrate the one way humans, or at least half of us, can purge out bodies of dioxins, and that is from Mother to unborn child. If you watch... be forewarned, and prepared.

Yet even here in the UK there are 'officials' who at best seem... too comfortable with reassurances from those they'd prefer to hear from than those who don't suit.

And with our headlines currently full of breaches of trust from those in authority... and even complicit media driven more by agendas than professional integrity... I tend to err on the precautionary principle advocated by the Professors and experts we were presented with throughout.

And it's not like some 'we're all doomongering' efforts where the pulls are economic vs. environment; there are compelling triple bottom line arguments in mitigation to be had too. Win-win-wins abounding, just like those we try and push here at Junkk.com or with RE:tie. It doesn't have to be a stark choice between living in a cave or dying a horrible slow death.

If I was to offer a critique, it would be that the movie was 80% problem, and 20% more positive. Though the positives were inspiring. I was thrilled to see a section on the inspirational unpackaged concept, for instance, and especially to hear their spokeslady talk not just in savings terms, but also... shock... making a profit!

But it is necessary to grasp and appreciate that there are some ideals that reality may not allow. Population densities, budgets... time.

These are all vast, intermingled issues that are hugely complex and need to be discussed as part of the whole 'green' deal (and another time than here). And too often this rather key fact gets lost in focusing on one issue. Focus is good, but it can lead to dogma, and dogma can create pockets, and pockets competing for attention can mean inconvenient truths that don't suit get ignored to push the passion, more than being aware of the pragmatic actualities.

The movie made me realise how easy it is to get caught up on one's own little area of concern, and perhaps ignore the bigger picture and how others in theirs need to be related to. But on the whole I felt a strong sense of vindication with what we at Junkk are trying to do, and how it can't hurt and hopefully can help. If in a small way. But it also made me realise that the movie addressed reduction (which has limits), and recycling (which has 'issues') and disposal (which has huge consequences), but barely even tipped a hat at the potential of reuse... especially designed-in reuse, or repair.

Now these are niche and poor cousins, but with a bit of imagination and will, they could become just as big as solutions... and money-making ones too. I hate to say it, but a lot of effort does seem focused on areas of dealing with waste that are now profitable but maybe not that great on enviROI and hence as good for the planet as often claimed. Box-tickers and target-setters do like such things as rates and bonusses can be easily related.

Yes, sending a container with bales of compressed milk bottles to be 'recycled' is better than sending it empty... but what about the possibility they don't need 'processing' at all, and get sent to a place where they can become a new, long-lasting product in their own right? The movie well showed that the resilience of these new waste materials makes them pretty effective in aggressive environments. Why not apply them rather than keep looking for ways to deal with them, if not having them is simply not a consumer society-realistic option?

I noticed that a member of the Rausing family had helped with the funding.

Maybe Tetrapak would be open to an approach from Junkk.com or RE:tie again on the back of this movie, when any tries before have not got past the gatekeepers who can often talk a good tale, but end up failing to walk quite as well in complement?

If they did, maybe together we can find ways to be both clever... and wise?

Caption: By coincidence, in chatting with said media baron last week, I happened to stumble across an experiment I had bee conducting, namely leaving a bio-degradable shopping bag to do its thing. Clearly, after a few years, it is on its way, but if non longer a turtle-choking threat, those little pieces are still not very benign. 

ADDENDUM 1 - In researching this further, and in wishing all on the US Eastern seaboard well post-Sandy, I found this interesting:

http://www.lastnightsgarbage.com/?p=2890


‘New York City is an island built on garbage. Dutch settlers constructed much of the southern tip of Manhattan by extending the shoreline with landfill.’

ADDENDUM 2 - A URL of a new post about the issue closer to home:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20154032

ADDENDUM 3 - In compelment to the Energy from Waste segment:

http://www.fastcoexist.com/1680763/sweden-needs-more-trash-because-it-has-turned-all-its-got-into-energy

ADDENDUM 4 - an interview with the producer by the packaging industry:

http://www.packagingnews.co.uk/environment/trashed-challenges-world-to-change-habits-profile/

Can stand the competition...

... plus bottles, jars, cartons, etc.

On matters triple bottom line, I noticed this story and asked for the Press Release (much too lazy to rejig much as it doesn't need it). Seems some can make green out of, well... green:

‘Innocent’ named as most admired brand for its environmental approach to packaging

Packaging professionals have named ‘Innocent’ their most admired brand for its environmental approach to packaging according to a new survey released today.

The survey, put together by packaging trade show specialist’s easyFairs, questioned 289 packaging professionals, asking them a number of questions, of which one was to openly name a brand that they really admired for its green packaging approach. In response 10% suggested the ‘Innocent’ brand, followed by ‘Marks & Spencer’ (7%) and ‘Kenco’ (5%).

Matt Benyon, managing director at easyFairs UK and Ireland comments: “Innocent have made tremendous steps over the last few years in making their packaging better for the environment, from using food grade recycled plastic in their bottles, to making their cartons from 100% Forest Stewardship Council certified material. They also have a very strong sustainable packaging policy in place.”

He continues: “What impresses me most, is that we asked all those surveyed to name any brand they like, so to have 10% come back saying ‘Innocent’ is quite amazing, and just shows how Innocent get things right in not only the green packaging side of things, but conveying their green message across to its peers and consumers. A lot of companies are doing great things out there, just they don’t tell us, which is a real shame.”

Indeed, over a quarter (27%) surveyed, admitted that they were doing lots when it comes to environmental packaging but not shouting about it.

However, when asked what is driving their packaging decisions at the moment, top of the list was cost, with a huge 69% stating this. Over half (58%) also said that the tougher economic climate means they are less likely to introduce more environmentally sound packaging unless it saves them money as well.

This shows that there is still a battle between keeping costs to a minimum and improving environmental performance of packaging for most professionals working in the industry.

Matt explains: “Our survey showed that 46% are interested in greener materials, but it’s paying that bit extra for these materials that is the problem. It’s that catch 22, companies need to keep costs down, but also understand the importance of having a proactive approach to environmental packaging. At the moment too many companies are still afraid to take that risk to switch to a greener solution, unless it costs them less, which in most cases is unlikely. We all know that Innocent is not the cheapest of products on the market, but it has educated the market place on environmental issues and how purchasing their products can help, which is why they have become so successful.”

Without a doubt, and issues that many professionals identify and agree with. For example over a third (35%) said that it is the brand owner’s responsibility to educate consumers on the positive effect that environmental packaging has. 75% of those surveyed also admitted that it is the customer who is driving them to improve their green packaging and 66% said that their environmental performance was important to their consumers of their products. It’s just delivering at a cost that works for them.

Matt comments: “I do think we’ve come along way, and packaging professionals are doing a lot more than they ever have done compared to previous years to meet the ‘green’ demand from consumers. For example, we asked our respondents to be truly frank, and rate on a scale whether they could be doing any more to reduce the environment impact of their packaging, where 10 meant they couldn’t be doing anything more. 65% wrote down either 7 or above, which is very promising.”

Elsewhere the survey also showed that the toy industry is the most guilty of over-packaging, with 26% thinking this. Whilst 61% thought that the cosmetics/perfumery/toiletries industries were the most innovative when it comes to packaging.

Now this is all very interesting, given Junkk.com's ongoing efforts to promote RE:tie, especially given the latter's latest research to show that there are ways that consumer can be delivered eco-innovation that also translates into sales. Extra and/or sucking share from competitors.

By sheer coincidence, Innocent, or at least one of its founders, has cropped up today with a competition we have been invited to enter: BBC's 'Be Your Own Boss'

Now, I have entered too (sadly Innocent have shown no interest in RE:tie, despite its obvious relevance to their brand and environmental commitments, so no point rehashing that route. Luckily, Yoda-like, 'there is another') so if, in sharing this you enter and kick me off... at least put in a good word!

We need more good news today

Freiburg lights way to energy savings

We don't say: 'Reduce your mobility.' What we try to do is create better alternatives," explained Dieter Wörner, the city's environment chief.