The Costs of Environmentalism in an Oxford College

Environmentalists have not yet fully caught on to the fact that their well-intentioned policies often have undesirable, unintended consequences. Consider the of bioplastics instead of normal plastics in wrapping food. According to this Guardian piece:

'The substitutes can increase emissions of greenhouse gases on landfill sites, some need high temperatures to decompose and others cannot be recycled in Britain.'

Furthermore, these bioplastics are produced from crops like wheat and sugar cane. Demand for 'alternative' and supposedly environmental friendly plastics has thus tempted farmers in the developing world to shift away from food production. This has had an obvious effect on global food supplies. They are having a similar albeit smaller effect as biofuels on food prices. As one blogger has put 'bioplastics are the ''other'' biofuel'. With respect to the problems of biofuels, Noble prize winner Amartya Sen has eloquently written that

'Agricultural crops like corn and soybeans can be used for making ethanol for motor fuel. So the stomachs of the hungry must also compete with fuel tanks.'

But it is also true that the hungry have to compete  with other claims on the consciences of those in the rich world, with alternative, and to some extent competing concerns such as environmentalism. 

With this in mind I was both intrigued and worried about the fact my college's student union has proposed replacing plastic cups in the bar with cups made from 'plant starch'. I wanted to know if by doing this the student union was inadvertently contributing further to the food crisis?

The full proposal from the SU reads:

'This SU notes:

1. Wadham has a tradition of environmental awareness and activism
2. Plastic cups are bad for the environment
3. The bar currently uses a lot of plastic cups
4. Biodegradable cups made of plant starch exist and are indistinguishable from the plastic cups we currently use.

This SU Believes:

1. Plant starch cups are better for the environment and thus more desirable than plastic cups
2. As a college we should continue to burnish our green credentials

This SU Resolves:

1. To mandate the bar and social officers to investigate the possibility of getting these plant starch cups for the bar
2. If it turns out to be feasible, to present the case for this to the DB to ensure it happens.

Now I don't very much about this plant starch and I have been unable to find many details having conducted a brief internet search. Here is what I did find:

The plant starch cups for sale are made from corn. I've also managed to find plates made from sugar cane. Natureworks are one of the producers of starch cups and plates I have found for sale online and they are one of the companies condemned in the guardian piece for producing 'biodegradable' products that don't actually biodegrade.  More importantly these plant starches come from plants that would otherwise be turned into food products. 

What angers me about the SU proposal is that there is no statement about 'the need to research whether or not plant starch cups are actually good for the environment' only the bald statement that they are better. Even worse are the stated reasons for adopting plant starch cups: the college should 'burnish our green credentials'.  It is not a competition about how green we are. It is not about our social identity as do-gooders and environmentalists, it is actually about the consequences of our actions. And from what I can tell the cost of burnishing these credentials may well be even higher food prices in the near future.

Comments

[PaulM]

The Guardian article is typical badly researched hype!

There are only around 200,000 tonnes of Bioplastic manufactured in the World right now, so work out what percentage that is of food crops when Global Wheat production alone is 524m tonnes per annum, corn is 766m tonnes per annum, add bioplastic sources of potato, soy, rice, and a few others to that. Even with expansion they are only talking of 2 million tonnes max by 2012, still a very small fraction of food crops, plus potatoes can be grown where food crops cannot, as in the case of AdventAgri of France, who grow on land that is unsuitable for food crops, the starch from there goes into Bioplast manufactured by http://www.stanelcoplc.com and used to make bags by http://www.comp-bio.co.uk and http://www.sphere.eu

Plant based plastics are biodegradable and compostable(many compostable at home) and certified as such.

Plant based plastics REDUCE greenhouse gases in the atmosphere as the plants grow. Growing more plants for plastic would REDUCE greenhouse gases and help reverse climate change AND crop failures.

One study shows that "every pound of soy-based polymers produced instead of petroleum-based removes 2.1 pounds of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere".

Another study shows that in manufacture, plant based plastics use 30% less energy and create just 25% of the greenhouse gases that fossil fuel plastics do. Also starch based plastics consume 2190 kg of GHG per tonne of plastic whilst the plants are growing.

NatureWorks PLA
The production of NatureWorks® PLA, the greenhouse-gas-neutral polymer from which Ingeo fiber is made, means up to 68 percent less greenhouse gases are added to the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases are the chief contributor to global climate change. Compostability and chemical recyclability mean that under the right conditions and with the right handling, the complete life cycle of production, consumption, disposal and reuse is neatly closed.

Mazda Bioplastics
Reducing CO2 emissions, energy use and materials consumption

Bioplastics are carbon-neutral* materials derived from plants. They also reduce the consumption of fossil fuels, thus producing less CO2. Additionally, the production process involves the fermentation of starches and sugars contained in plants, so the energy used during production is approximately 30% lower than for a typical plastic, such as polypropylene. Also, the bioplastic's high rigidity means thinner parts can be molded, which leads directly to savings in the amount of raw plastic needed.

* The CO2 discharged during decomposition and combustion of bioplastics is offset by the CO2 that the plants, which are used to produce the plastic, absorb through photosynthesis. Carbon-neutral is a characteristic of materials that do not increase or decrease the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Recently the producers of the corn-based plastic resin, Mirel™, released the results of a life cycle assessment conducted by chemical engineers at Michigan State University. They determined that, “production of Mirel reduces the use of nonrenewable energy by more than 95% and provides a 200% reduction in greenhouse gases (GHG) compared to production of conventional petroleum-based plastics.”

The article notes that Mirel is made from corn and uses renewable energy for production. The LCA study measures the impacts of the resin from “cradle to factory gate” and says that Mirel actually has a negative net CO2 footprint. They also compare Mirel to other olefins such as polypropylene and polyethylene, saying that the biobased plastic requires only 2.5 MJ/kg of nonrenewable energy per kilogram verses 70 MJ/kg.

Recently the producers of the corn-based plastic resin, Mirel™, released the results of a life cycle assessment conducted by chemical engineers at Michigan State University. They determined that, “production of Mirel reduces the use of nonrenewable energy by more than 95% and provides a 200% reduction in greenhouse gases (GHG) compared to production of conventional petroleum-based plastics.”

The article notes that Mirel is made from corn and uses renewable energy for production. The LCA study measures the impacts of the resin from “cradle to factory gate” and says that Mirel actually has a negative net CO2 footprint. They also compare Mirel to other olefins such as polypropylene and polyethylene, saying that the biobased plastic requires only 2.5 MJ/kg of nonrenewable energy per kilogram verses 70 MJ/kg.

Bioplastics at a Glance

Bioplastics represent a relatively new class of materials which have much in common with conventional plastics. What differentiates them is

* the use of renewable resources in their manufacture
* the biodegradability and compostability of many bioplastics products.

Their development follows nature’s example: 100 billion tonnes of biomass are annually produced from plants, using sunlight and photosynthesis. The same amount biodegrades back into the source materials, carbon dioxide (CO2) and water, together with small amounts of biomass and minerals. This occurs primarily through biological degradation via numerous microbes. The bioplastics industry’s aim is to imitate this closed loop, as it represents the means by which environmentally-damaging CO2 emissions can be reduced and fossil resources conserved for future generations.

The crucial point is the utilisation of renewable resources. Bioplastics’ great advantage – the conservation of fossil resources and reduction in CO2 emissions – make them one of the most important innovations for sustainable development. Plastics, with their current global consumption of more than 200 million tonnes (EU approx. 40 mill. t) and annual growth of approx. 5%, represent the largest field of application for crude oil outside the energy and transport sectors. This 5% crude oil consumption may appear comparatively small, however it does emphasise how dependent the plastics industry is on oil. Price increases in crude oil and natural gas caused by strong demand and political conflict also have a marked effect on the plastics market. It is becoming increasingly important and pressing for this significant industry branch (worth EUR 200 billion in all sectors of Europe) to utilise alternative raw materials.

Climate Protection

Today mainly man-made influences are considered to be reasons for climate change. Burning fossil resources increases the share of CO2 in atmosphere, which causes an increase of the average temperature (greenhouse effect). Scientists see a distinct connection between CO2 increase in atmosphere and the increase of number of thunderstorms, floods and aridity. Climate protection is nowadays a central part of environmental policy, due to the fact that climate change can create far-reaching negative consequences. Governments and organisations work against this threat with targeted measures.

The increased use of renewable resources is an important step towards a solution. Life cycle analysis show, that bioplastics enable a CO2 saving of 30 to 80% compared to conventional plastics.

[Bishop Hill]

PaulM

Life cycle analysis is a fool's way of trying to understand resource usage. Start with the price and then try to put a figure on externalities. It's the only way.

[PaulM]

Bishop Hill,

The plastics market is now driven by CO2 reduction, a demand for renewable raw materials, as well as compostable, biodegradable, and landfill reduction.

LCA is the choice of the buyers not price, the fools way is to choose price over reduction of climate change, as sales will go the the greener company, the one that shows it's LCA as carbon neutral or even carbon negative.

The fool that chooses oil based plastics will end up being priced out of the market, as Bioplastics achieve greater economy of scale and take market share from the oil based plastics, then oil based plastics will lose economy of scale, the oil based plastics market will see many factory closures and job losses, Bioplastics are the future whether you like it or not.

As for resource usage, it's clear from the LCA of Bioplastic that it uses way less non-renewable resources such as fossil fuel based matter and non-renewable energy.

You should ask yourself what is driving the Bioplastics market at growth of more than 20% per annum, it is the 'going green' choice backed by LCA.

I look from the point of view of an investor and researcher in green technologies such as Bioplastics, how much money will I make in the bioplastics boom years of 2008-2025, and how will your view of resource usage look in 2025 when Bioplastic is the plastic market?

;-)

[Mark]

I'm glad this has provoked an informed response. I know that bioplastics are a tiny part of the market relevant to the total wheat crop. But the bioplastics market is growing quite rapidly at 8-10 % per year so its effect on the margin is greater than its market size suggests. The broader point is that even if bioplastics are part of the answer to global warming, there are real trade-offs to be made and these should be explicitly acknowledged.

The benefits associated with shifting to bioplastics or indeed biofuels now through lower carbon dioxide emissions will accrue in the future and remain quite uncertain. Obviously estimating these benefits is the role of climate scientists rather than economists. But economists can estimate the costs that are associated with a policy like ethanol subsidies.

Now I'm not suggesting that bioplastics are in the same league and I hope that PaulM is right about benefits of moving to bioplastics in the future and agree that it will be interesting to see quickly this market will develop. What I am suggesting is that we adopt a evidence based approach to the problem rather than a religious one which was the attitude I deteted in the SU proposal.

[PaulM]

Mark,

What is happening is that the Biofuels companies are working on ways of making biofuel that move them away from taking possible food from crops, one way is that they are looking at using the parts of the plant that are discarded when the plant is used for food, this is already the case with many Bioplastics as the starch factories such as National Starch use the parts of the plant that are waste from food processing industry.

One of the waste recoveries is in potato processing, where crisps, chips, dried potato etc are produced for the food industry, what is left is potato peel and potatoes that are not up to standard, but this waste contains starch and companies like National Starch extract that and sell it for various uses, some as a thickener in processed foods, some as a sizing for the paper industry, and some for bioplastics production.

Biofuels companies are looking at using stalks and leaves etc from wheat and corn and other food crops.

Biofuels companies are also looking at biorefineries, where bacteria manufacture the biofuel, just as bacteria manufacture Mirrel bioplastic, in the case of Mirrel they just need to be fed plant sugar, but Metabolix are looking at a GMO version where the Mirrel polymer grows in the plant.

Another Biofuel method that is being developed uses algae, now I wouldn't personally eat algae!

The bioplastic made by Stanelco PLC uses potatoes, but these are not food crops, they are grown on contaminated land, and it would be hazardous to your health to eat crops grown on this land.

As Biofuels are looking to move away from food crop usage, so will Bioplastics, just like the potatoes grown on contaminated land they will use crops grown in places where food crops will not grow, and potatoes will grow in many places where you just cannot grow any other crops. Look at the plant Talas bogor which is a leafy plant grown in sub-tropical countries and contains up to 65% starch, it has a big daddy called Colocasia Gigantea, this could be grown on the edge of the desert where no other crop will grow.

[NH]

Have you, by any chance, asked Colin the barman what he thinks of this proposal? Because I remember with great fondness his response when the SU denied us all Coca-Cola products.

I think the SU would be far better off passing a resolution about the theft of pint glasses from college; maybe if people kept their sticky fingers to themselves, we wouldn't have to use plastic (or plant starch) cups at all.

[Mark.Koyama]

You're entirely right that pint glasses would be infinitely preferable to plastic cups and better for the environment too! We should have large fines to deters people stealing pint glasses.