Select Page

Vote With Knowledge – There Is No Planet B

by | Oct 4, 2024 | A Sustainable Future, Climate Change, Featured

Vote With Knowledge – There Is No Planet B

Allan Maynard, MSc. – October 2024

About 50% of the world’s population – literally billions of people – are voting in 2024. I wish I could be sure that the state of planet earth (climate change and ecological collapse) would be a deciding factor. There is no turning away – the world is in a crisis beyond even the direst of predictions that date back into the late 1800s. The warming planet is wreaking havoc over the entire globe – intensifying forest fires, droughts, sea- and land-ice loss, rising sea-levels, unprecedented and unpredictable flooding, and other storm events. Our oceans, home to more than half of all the world’s species is 30% more acidic signalling the most rapid shift in ocean chemistry in the past 50 million years.

The Greenland ice cap is losing an average of 30m tonnes per hour which is 20% more than predicted. This is likely to accelerate a collapse of the ocean currents called the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (Amoc), with severe consequences for humanity.

The crisis is real, it’s major and must be addressed much more aggressively than in the past number of decades.

Move Away from Animal Agriculture

A stranded car sits in flood waters as Tropical Storm Helene strikes, in Boone, North Carolina, U.S. September 27, 2024

CASE CLOSED – IT IS US

The science is clear – human activity (the burning of fossil fuels) is the cause of this crisis. This clear fact becomes highly inconvenient to those with vested interests in business as usual. Trillions of dollars of assets will have to be left in the ground as the world moves away from energy based on fossil fuels. The industry response to this inconvenient truth has been massive investments for misinformation and disinformation campaigns designed to undermine the science. Unfortunately, this investment has had success with many voters still believing that the science is not certain. BUT IT IS CERTAIN.

The degree of scientific certainty about the impact of greenhouse gases is now comparable to the level of agreement on evolution, plate tectonics, germ theory and the impacts of cigarette smoking. The consensus is almost 100%. Here is a list of 200 scientific organizations all over the world (science academies and associations) that hold the position that Climate Change has been caused by human. action. https://www.opr.ca.gov/facts/list-of-scientific-organizations.html

This is not a trivial list and covers almost all relevant science around the world. Those of us in high-emitting countries cannot hide behind a defence of ignorance.

WHY THEN – A POLITICAL DIVIDE?

It is hard to fathom, with the clear evidence concerning the severity of the crisis and the overwhelming scientific agreement, that this issue would not then be approached in a bipartisan manner – that is “all hands-on deck.” But this is clearly not the case. ‘Right wing’ (or conservative) political parties around the world have been fighting, and at times even mocking this scientific consensus.

There are many studies in the literature examining this situation. Evidence of a link between people supporting right-wing political parties and climate-change scepticism was identified in a 2022 study from the University of Oxford and the Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences (see reference below). One common denominator seems to be a general distrust of scientific consensus. This also seemed the case in the response to the Covid pandemic.

Move Away from Animal Agriculture

There is no doubt that Big Industry, with vested interests in business as usual, takes advantage of this distrust by funding campaigns to exaggerate it by obfuscating the science. It is in their interests to support politicians that can take this distrust and nurture it into the realm of conspiracy theories and culture wars. They shamelessly treat misinformation as a political strategy. Unfortunately, these campaigns have been successful in delaying or even reversing the needed progress. This is one of the major reasons why the crisis is now so extreme.

Consider Brazil under the administration of Jair Bolsonaro. From a shocking increase in deforestation (over 50%) to the approval of over a thousand new pesticides (many banned elsewhere), his administration was a disaster for Brazil but also for the world. It will take decades to reverse this damage – if at all.

And then there is the United States with an election coming up in November of this year. The choice could not be starker with Donald Trump the worst possible choice who gets everything wrong about climate change and ecological destruction, even mocking world- renowned American scientific and technological expertise. It is a willful ignorance beyond anything I could possibly imagine, and yet not surprising given his bizarre detachment from reality on most issues (the 3rd link in the references below is an excellent article on this by Bill McKibben). Big Industry would like nothing more to again have such a useful idiot in the White House based on his promise (along with a blatant request for donations) to completely reverse the important progress made over the past 4 years and in previous decades (more on that below).

In my Province – British Columbia we are facing an election in on October 19th, 2024. The Conservative Party is led by John Rustad, who has a long history of doubting climate science and the need for climate action, going so far as hinting that climate policies are a plot to control people. He has back-pedaled somewhat now saying that he believes climate change is real, but it’s not a crisis and wants to tackle crime, drugs and affordability problems first. Of course, those issues are also crucial but why back-burner environmental issues?

This also goes for the Federal Conservative party led by Federal Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre who has voted against the environment and climate nearly 400 times during his 20-year career as a Member of Parliament, according to House of Commons voting records. His campaign slogan is to “Axe The Tax” (carbon tax) but evidence based proposals to deal with climate change are minimal. The Canadian election likely will not take place until October 2025. We need to watch this one closely.

Move Away from Animal Agriculture

Click Image to Enlarge

IT’S THE ECONOMY STUPID.

“It’s the economy stupid” was a phrase coined by James Carville in 1992, when he was advising Bill Clinton in his successful run for the White House. Unfortunately, there has been a preponderance of false thinking that economic growth must take precedence over environmental protection This is a false premise. The two go hand in hand.

Firstly the negatives of inaction – consider the current and rising costs of environmental disasters. For instance – the U.S. set an unwelcome record for weather and climate disasters in 2023, with 28 disasters that exceeded more than $1 billion in damage each. Hurricane Helene’s catastrophic winds and flooding has inflicted heart-breaking misery to millions along with over 100 million dollars of damage and economic loss (according to an early estimate).

The global cost of climate change damage is estimated to be between $1.7 trillion and $3.1 trillion per year by 2050. Lives are upended causing massive increases in human displacement.  As of May 2024, the number of forcibly displaced people in the world has reached a staggering 120 million. The insurance industry has now been completely upended.

And now consider the economic opportunities taking action – When Joe Biden was elected in 2020, his administration embarked on one of the most significant climate agendas in history. Did the economy suffer? NO!! In fact, nearly 16 million new jobs were created, including almost 800,000 manufacturing jobs. For the environment, $370 billion is being invested to combat climate change, and to date, there’s been more than $100 billion in private investment and roughly 100,000 new jobs created in clean energy manufacturing (see reference below).  Worldwide, renewable energy jobs have almost doubled in 10 years to 13.7m jobs, according to the World Economic Forum). Renewable energy, mostly from the sun and wind, seems to be reaching some sort of takeoff point. By some calculations, the world is now putting up a nuclear plant’s worth of solar panels every day.

ARE VOTERS AWARE ENOUGH?

Our societies around the world are facing so many acute issues needing the attention of those we elect. Many seem so pressing and urgent in the shorter term. However, for our future of our children and grandchildren, climate change and ecological destruction cannot be delayed or set aside. Over my 50-year career in the field of environmental science, I have witnessed some amazing leaps of progress, but I have also experienced major bouts of frustration and exasperation at setbacks – mostly due to Big Capital’s control over politics. It’s been a case of 3 steps forward, 2.5 steps back. I have 7 grandchildren (ages 9 to 20). I want their futures and the futures of generations to come, to be secure and safe. It is my hope that voters will feel likewise, take steps to be duly informed on the crises we face, and support candidates who will take the needed action. Business as usual is not an option.

REFERENCES – some of these are from certain media outlets and all provide links to more complete back up literature. Here also, are 3 books that I recommend that are highly readable and informative.

BOOK – “FIRE WEATHER – A TRUE STORY FROM A HOTTER WORLD” BY John Vaillant – Alfred A. Knopf publisher – 6/3023

BOOK ‘THE CLIMATE BOOK” – Greta Thunberg – a collections of writings by over 100 experts on all relevant aspects of the crisis. Penguin Press – 2023

BOOK – “SAVING US – A CLIMATE SCIENTIST’S HOPE AND HEALING IN A DIVIDED WORLD” – Katherine Hayhoe. Simon and Schuster, 2021.

https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-01-12-link-between-climate-scepticism-and-support-right-wing-populists-study

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1369118X.2020.1864005?journalCode=rics20

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2024/sep/06/presidential-election-climate-crisis-project-2025-trump

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-truth-about-climate-action-versus-economic-growth/

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/a-record-28-billion-dollar-weather-and-climate-disasters-struck-the-u-s-in-2023-noaa-says

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/10/climate-loss-and-damage-cost-16-million-per-hour/

https://civil-protection-humanitarian-aid.ec.europa.eu/what/humanitarian-aid/forced-displacement_en#:~:text=120%20million%20forcibly%20displaced%20people,68.3%20million%20internally%20displaced%20persons

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/a-look-at-the-economic-impact-and-progress-of-bidens-inflation-reduction-act-so-far

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/10/irena-renewable-energy-jobs/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2024/09/28/hurricane-helene-tropical-storm-updates-saturday/75417411007/#

Need a New Car? Going “Green” Can Be A Wise Choice.

by | May 28, 2024 | A Sustainable Future, Climate Change, Featured

Need a New Car? Going “Green” Can Be A Wise Choice.

Allan Maynard, MSc. – May 2024

 

After 2 years of research, pondering and a degree of procrastination, I acquired a new car. I took my time. Firstly, I was totally satisfied with the car I had. It was a very comfortable ride and reasonably fuel efficient. Furthermore, being retired, I don’t routinely drive that much.

I became concerned about the age of my car (a 2006 small SUV), but the main reason for finally getting a new car was the desire to be environmentally responsible, especially given my hosting of a web site dealing with climate change and other environmental matters. As well – the trend to battery cars is inevitable. Canada will require all new automobiles to be “zero-emission” by 2035. Many other countries have introduced similar requirements.

As forests burn and cities drown, as crops wither and people die – there is no longer doubt that climate change is dangerously impacting societies the world over. In 2016, 196 nations signed the legally binding Paris Accord. The Agreement’s central aim is to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change by keeping a global temperature rise this century well below 2 degrees (preferably 1.5 degrees) Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

A typical passenger vehicle emits about 4.6 metric tons of CO2 per year (see first reference for how this is calculated). This means that about 20% of greenhouse gas emissions result from the use of personal vehicles. As such, electrifying transportation systems is a crucial component in reaching the global goals. A second significant benefit in electrifying transportation, is the reduction of air pollution (particles and oxides of nitrogen). Around the world, air pollution is responsible for over 7 million early deaths per year.

Fully electric vehicles (EVs) have no tailpipe emissions. It is well understood though, that EVs are not zero emissions as explained below. Hybrid vehicles and plug in hybrid vehicles provide significant reductions in emissions and are thus a good option when going fully EV may not be workable.

It is important to not be fooled by the misinformation circulating via social media and other outlets, such as the ridiculous claim that electric vehicles  (EVs) pollute more than gas cars due to battery manufacturing. These are false flags, and it only takes a bit of research time to expose these myths.

The car I decided on is in the last paragraph of this article. Please read on.

Move Away from Animal Agriculture

Please Click to Enlarge

FACTS AND MYTHS

There is a massive amount of information on battery operated cars. It is complex and nuanced. I will not go into a great deal of detail but have provided adequate references.

 

 

  1. Manufacturing – The manufacturing of a typical electric vehicle (EV) can create more carbon pollution than manufacturing a gasoline car because of the additional energy required to manufacture an EV’s battery. However, over the lifetime of the vehicle, total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with manufacturing, charging, and driving an EV are much lower than the total GHGs associated with a gasoline car. See graph – figure 1

2. Operation – driving an EV produces zero carbon but the emissions ‘equivalent’ must take into consideration how the electricity for charging is produced. In many cases EVs need power from power plants that use fossil fuels. This has an overall impact, but even when the power grid is heavily dependent on ‘dirty’ fuel (oil and coal), an EV produces less greenhouse gas emission See graph 2.

3. Mining for minerals vs mining for fossil fuels – millions vs billions

There is no doubt that the extraction of precious minerals and lithium needed for EV batteries has an environmental impact. However, the extraction is significantly lower for electric cars compared to gas and diesel cars. Mining minerals for the clean-energy economy is measured in millions of tons per year (7 million tons in 2020). By contrast, the fossil fuel industry extracted the equivalent of 15 billion metric tons in 2019.

Moreover, the fossil fuel industry will need to extract this year after year to keep supplying energy. Clean-energy technology can use at least some of these materials for decades or in some cases, if recycled effectively, in perpetuity.

4. Range anxiety is real

For sure the concern for the range of EVs is real. However, for most uses, the EV range is not an issue at all. Firstly – the range of fully charged EVs has improved dramatically over the past 5 years with the average range now at 378KM (237 miles). Some are as high as 690 km (431 miles). The model S Tesla has a range of 500km (310 miles). Again – these are only guidelines as the range depends on many factors such as geography or temperature. By far most driving involves short trips – commuting, shopping, social, etc. The daily average in North America is around 50 km (30 miles) per day. Clearly the EV range is not an issue in such cases.

However, it is an issue for longer trips. Currently there are not enough EV charging stations in North America. For a driver needing to travel more than 200 km, a charging plan would be required.

Move Away from Animal Agriculture

Figure 1 – from Yale Climate Connections – 2022. Note – in Canada we use liters per 100 km – to convert – divide 235.2 by the miles per US gallon. Thus – in the chart above – 79 miles per gallon is 2.98 liters per 100 km.

​

5. Battery Life and Maintenance

EV batteries aren’t cheap. The battery is typically the most expensive component of an electric car and can cost as much as $20,000, which means replacement can be a pricey proposition. So, how long do EV batteries last? Most last between 10 and 20 years; for context, the average car on American roads is 12.5 years old. The battery life can vary slightly or significantly depending on certain factors.

Another factor to consider – EVs typically require significantly less maintenance than conventional vehicles because the battery, motor, and associated electronics require little to no regular maintenance. There are fewer fluids, such as engine oil, that require regular maintenance.

6. Cost outlay

For many consumers, the most significant obstacle is the initial capital outlay. EVs generally cost more, and it is straightforward to carry out cost comparisons among similar models. There are also many references available that allow calculations to determine the break-even point – at which the savings in operating an EV offset the capital outlay. The last reference below calculates a savings of over 7000 dollars over 7 years of operations – but the calculations are complex and depend on may factors.

Move Away from Animal Agriculture

SO — WHAT DID I CHOOSE?

From my research, it became abundantly clear that an electric vehicle is much better for the environment under all circumstances, and especially so in British Columbia with abundant hydroelectricity. As well, I felt reassured concerning battery life. If this purchase had been for a household of 2 cars, I certainly would have selected a full EV. However, since this will be my only car, I did have a concern for the range in that I do anticipate a few longer trips.

As such, I decided on a plug-in hybrid or PHEV (Mitsubishi Outlander). On an overnight charge I have a range of about 60km (40 miles) and thus almost all (more than 85%) of my drives will be on electricity. So far, I have driven over 2500 km and only had to fill my gas tank once. Even when I am using the gasoline engine, the fuel efficiency is double the efficiency of an equivalent gasoline vehicle.

SUMMARY COMMENTS

There are so many factors in assessing whether to acquire an EV. The references below will provide greater detail for those wishing to consider this choice.

https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/greenhouse-gas-emissions-typical-passenger-vehicle#:~:text=typical%20passenger%20vehicle%3F-,A%20typical%20passenger%20vehicle%20emits%20about%204.6%20metric%20tons%20of,8%2C887%20grams%20of%20CO2.

https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths

https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/are-electric-vehicles-definitely-better-climate-gas-powered-cars

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/dec/23/do-electric-cars-really-produce-fewer-carbon-emissions-than-petrol-or-diesel-vehicles

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/interactive/2023/electric-vehicle-charging-price-vs-gasoline/

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a45036169/electric-vehicle-ev-cost-to-charge/

https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-critical-minerals-in-clean-energy-transitions/mineral-requirements-for-clean-energy-transitions

https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/mining-low-carbon-vs-fossil#footnote-3-97284603

https://ev-database.org/cheatsheet/range-electric-car

https://aaafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/202309_2022-AAAFTS-American-Driving-Survey-Brief_v3.pdf

https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/advice/how-long-do-ev-batteries-last#:~:text=EV%20batteries%20typically%20last%2010,all%20affect%20EV%20battery%20life.

https://www.nrdc.org/stories/electric-vs-gas-cars-it-cheaper-drive-ev

 

 

Will 2023 be the year that was or merely a prelude of the years to come?

by | Jan 16, 2024 | A Sustainable Future, Climate Change

Will 2023 be the year that was or merely a prelude of the years to come?

A helicopter battles the McDougall Creek wildfire as it burns in the hills of West Kelowna, British Columbia, on Aug. 17. (Darren Hull/AFP/Getty Images)

​

Will 2023 be the year that was or merely a prelude of the years to come?

It is likely that 2023 will be remembered as the point at which humanity’s inability to deal with a climate crisis of its own making the was finally and fully exposed.  Will 2023 be also remembered as an inflection upon which the science is truly accepted by society thereby driving radical and rapid change?  Or will the heat anomaly and catastrophes of 2023 be looked back upon as one of the cooler, more stable years in people’s lives.

2023 WAS A YEAR OF EXTREMES

This past year has now been confirmed as the hottest year in recorded history – a record surpassed by a large margin and much sooner than predicted.  Scientists repeatedly expressed shock as successive heat records fell, and warned the world is moving dangerously close to the 1.5-degree limit that nearly 200 countries sought to avoid in the Paris Agreement in 2015.

Deaths from heat stroke are at an all-time high around the world. Millions around the globe are now stranded in inhospitable conditions by global heating. The graph shows some of the many records broken – these from the global measurements just prior to the year end. There were countless local records also surpassed.

global atmospheric temperatures

Please Click to Enlarge

In addition to global atmospheric temperatures – many other records were were smashed in 2023 including:

  • levels of heat absorbed by Earth’s oceans, which have been warming year-on-year for the past decade
  • loss of sea ice in the Arctic and Antarctic,
  • extent and duration of ‘heat domes’ (such as in Phoenix Arizona with over 30 days above 43 degrees C / or 110 F),
  • extent of rainfall (especially in China) and flooding (with the flood in eastern Libya considered the worst disaster of the 21st century)
  • extent and duration of droughts with associated food insecurity,
  • total hectares lost from wildfires (especially in Canada – see chart).

2023 WAS ALSO A YEAR FOR SOME HOPE

The climate extremes of 2023 were impossible to ignore thus raising overall awareness about the extent of the climate emergency. There were some positive signs of movement in the right direction.  

  • The COP 28 (Conference of the Parties) at least mentioned the ‘elephant in the room’ – that being fossil fuels. The final compromise agreement stated the need to transition “away from fossil fuels in energy systems in a just, orderly and equitable manner, accelerating action in this critical decade, so as to achieve net zero by 2050 in keeping with the science”. It was considered a victory of sorts given the fact that this is the first COP where the words ‘fossil fuels’ are actually included in the draft decision. More about this below.

 

  • Over the year, global renewable energy capacity grew by the fastest pace ever recorded, which could put the world within reach of meeting a key climate target by the end of the decade, according to the International Energy Agency. Moreover, the cost of renewables is improving significantly – see chart.
2023 WAS ALSO A YEAR FOR SOME HOPE
global atmospheric temperatures

Please Click to Enlarge

  • Policy initiatives in many countries (USA, Canada, much of Europe and even China) are driving the increased uptake of electric vehicles and the building of energy efficient buildings.

 

  • Governments, fossil fuel firms and airlines are increasingly being met with climate lawsuits. According to data bases run by the Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, there are more than 2,500 lawsuits recorded globally, and this shows no sign of stopping any time soon. Why? – because it is highly effective.

LOOKING AHEAD TO 2024

According to most predictions, 2024 will be as hot or hotter than 2023. Vast areas of Earth’s oceans were record-warm for most of 2023, and it will take many months for that heat to be released. Moreover, an intense episode of the planet-warming El Niño climate pattern is nearing its peak, and the last time that happened, it pushed the planet to record warmth (in 2016).

It is also likely that the momentum that has been building towards the transition away from fossil fuels, will continue. Afterall, the awareness about the climate emergency within the public is higher than it has ever been. Any kind of denial about the reality climate change has been burned to a crisp.

As well, many scientists are increasingly optimistic about the power of technology to change the world, and in terms of our fight against climate change it’s one of the strongest levers that we have.

Massive forms of activism though, would be an even stronger lever. Political will depends on the mood of voters. What worries me is the trend towards extreme right-wing politics along with disinformation tactics that can easily work towards pushing the stop button on progress and even take us backwards. As I wrote in a previous article, capital has an outsized influence on politics thus sowing decades of division while the situation has worsened. In fact – Capital is rewarded by governments around the world, with subsidies estimated by the World Bank to be 23 million dollars per minute.

Indeed, capital (or big money) had an outsized influence on the last COP conference with oil industry lobbyists outnumbering the delegates of many developed countries –   hence a weakened commitment. Many from the science community feel that the text included language to placate fossil fuel interests and thus fell far short of what was needed on emissions reductions and finance to help the most vulnerable cope with worsening extreme weather and heat. The statement should, as a minimum, have stated the need to “phase out” of instead of “a transition away” from fossil fuels. In instances like these – words do matter.

Where does all this leave us? My conclusion is the same as for my last article. Short of donating to environmental organizations, or initiating our own forms of advocacy, the most important action we can individually do is to vote for our future and convince others to do the same. Politics matter – especially this year with so many critical elections taking place.  Any politician that does not acknowledge the crises the planet is facing and endorse a legitimate set of plans to deal with climate change and planetary destruction is not fit for office. We all have the power to ensure this happens and to advocate for change.

NOTE

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/dec/13/cop28-landmark-deal-agreed-to-transition-away-from-fossil-fuels

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/monthly-report/global-drought/202311#:~:text=Globally%2C%20November%202023%20ranked%20as,some%20cases%2C%20countering%20beneficial%20precipitation.

https://www.iea.org/news/renewable-power-on-course-to-shatter-more-records-as-countries-around-the-world-speed-up-deployment

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20231208-the-legal-battles-changing-the-course-of-climate-change?ocid=ww.social.link.email

 

 

THE MYTH OF PLASTIC RECYCLING

by | Nov 9, 2021 | Plastics

Allan Maynard, MSc. NOVEMBER 9, 2020

THE CRYING INDIAN – If you watched TV during the 1970s and 80s you would likely have seen one of the most iconic ads ever made. A buckskinned, black braided Native American (but called “Indian” in those days) is seen paddling down a pristine river but eventually enters a polluted harbor. He paddles his boat to a bank strewn with litter. As he exits his boat and wanders near a road someone flings a bag of trash from a moving car. The trash scatters at his feet.  The Native American then looks into the camera; a single tear is seen rolling down his cheek. The narrator booms –“People start pollution. People can stop it.” 

The ad in many aspects is a fraud. The “Crying Indian” is neither Native American nor crying. He was played by an Italian actor known for playing natives in western movies. The ad was sponsored by the organization “Keep America Beautiful”. What eventually became clear, the Keep America Beautiful organization was founded, and is still mainly funded, by the beverage and packaging industries. While anti-littering campaigns should certainly be lauded, the sinister reality behind this campaign was to shift blame for packaging waste in the environment towards the users of the products rather than the manufacturers. Thus began THE MYTH OF PLASTICS RECYCLING. 

THE NUMBERS IN REVIEW – In my October 26, 2020 article – “We Are Drowning in Plastics”, I presented dramatic statistics concerning plastic waste.  A quick review of the main facts:

  • 6 billion (approximately) tons of plastic materials have been produced in the period 1950 to 2015 (Science Advances, 2017)
  • The estimate to update that number into 2020 – approximately 9 billion tons 
  • Of the 6 billion tons of plastic ever made up to year 2015 – 9% has been recycled, 12% has been burned, and the remaining 79% has ended up in landfills or in the environment. 
  • The amount of plastic entering the oceans (earth’s last sink) is over 9 million tons each year. This is only a fraction of the total plastic waste generated. 

WHAT THE PLASTICS INDUSTRY KNEW – For decades, we have been sorting trash believing that most plastic could be recycled. But the truth is, the vast majority of all plastic produced can’t be or won’t be recycled. In a joint investigation, NPR (U.S. National Public Radio) and the PBS series Frontline found that oil and gas companies — the makers of plastic — have known this reality all along, even as they spent millions of dollars telling the American public the opposite. 

The main points from this investigation are: 

  • Plastics industry had “serious doubt” recycling would ever be viable

The investigators dug deep into various archives and found internal correspondence. For example, the investigators state —  “A report sent to top industry executives in April 1973 called recycling plastic ‘costly’ and “difficult.’ It called sorting it ‘infeasible’, saying ‘there is no recovery from obsolete products.’ Another document a year later was candid: There is ‘serious doubt’ widespread plastic recycling can ever be made viable on an economic basis.”

  • The industry promoted recycling to keep plastic bans at bay

The investigators interviewed three former top officials from the plastics industry who revealed that the industry promoted recycling as a way to beat back a growing tide of awareness about plastic pollution along with calls for banning certain products (late 80s, early 90s). Recycling, the former officials told NPR and Frontline, became a way to pre-empt the bans and sell even more plastic. In fact the industry projection is to triple production by 2050.

  • More recycling means fewer profits for petrochemical companies

The more plastic is recycled, the less money the industry will make selling new plastic. And those profits have become increasingly important with the declining market for fossil fuels. In essence the petrochemical companies are aware that a successful recycling operation will become their competitor. Or, if they undertake recycling themselves, it will reduce profits. It’s much cheaper (and thus more profitable) to make new products from raw materials than to make an inferior plastic product from waste.

The sad truth is that is that the plastics industry has promoted recycling mainly to sell more products. The public has been lead to believe that the recycling triangle on the bottom of plastic packing means the item the item can be recycled. The truth of the matter? – It’s complicated. 

Is it really necessary to package lettuce like this? These plastic containers are made of #1 PET thermoform and are usually used for berry containers, salad containers, tomato containers, etc. They are not readily recyclable. 

WHAT PLASTICS ARE THERE?  WHICH ONES CAN BE RECYLCED

Recycling is determined by two factors: the market and city or municipal government programs. If there’s an organized recycling program along with a demand in the market for the plastics collected, then recyclers and companies will pay for post-consumer recyclables. The market demand is quite limited in reality, and it greatly depends on the type of plastic.

In general terms there are two broad categories of plastic  – thermoset plastics and thermo-plastics. Thermo-plastics are plastics that can be re-melted and re-moulded into new products, and therefore, recycled. Thermoset plastics contain polymers that cross-link to form an irreversible chemical bond, meaning that no matter how much heat is applied, they cannot be re-melted into new material and hence are not recyclable.

Examples of plastic containers that can be recycled in curb side programs. These are #2 – HDPE – see table below.

In more specific terms, the following are the various formulations of plastics, what they are used for, the approximate proportions in the waste streams (up to and including the year 2015) and the possibilities for recycling.  Note – the numbers – 1 to 7 referenced appear on the plastic items usually in a small triangle. 

# Name Examples %  Re-cycling options
1 Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) Beverage bottles, food jars, clothing fiber, cosmetic bottles  11 Most PET products can be re-cycled from curb-side programs
2 High-density polyethylene (HDPE) Milk jugs, detergent bottles, toys, garden furniture 14 Similar to #1 – mostly accepted in blue bin programs
3 Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) 2 forms – a) rigid – for plumbing, windows, bank cards and b) non rigid – inflatable products, electric wire insulation, etc.  5 Some items can be recycled – but there are difficulties in separating.
4 Low-density polyethylene (LDPE) Plastic bags, food wrappings, squeezable bottles,  20 Only a few items can be recycled. The big issue is single use bags as they get caught in the sorting machines.
5 Polypropylene (PP) Bottle caps, straws, coolers, diapers, clothing and carpet fibers, and some food packing – yogurt, margarine, etc.  19 Most cannot be recycled through curb side programs
6 Polystyrene (PS) White Styrofoam – used in packaging and also for rigid food containers 6 Most municipalities do not accept Styrofoam products in curbside recycling programs
7 Other – category 7 A grab bag of plastics not found in any other category.   24% Mostly non recyclable

# – Refers to the number found in the triangle on each plastic item

% – Refers to the estimated percentage of each kind of plastic in the waste stream – up to 2015.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS ABOUT RECYLING – In general – it is the plastics with the numbers 1 and 2 (mostly) that can be recycled in curbside recycling programs. Others usually need to be taken to recycling locations or are simply sent to landfills or incinerators. Careful citizens will take the time to sort their plastics and take, to recycling depots, those items not permitted in curbside bins. However, the main concern is that a large majority will simply put all plastic items in curbside blue boxes. In such cases – likely the majority – the items that cannot be recycled will be considered trash. 

Mixed material such as zip lock bags can be a problem. For instance – take away coffee cups. While the outside of the cup is made of paper, inside is a thin layer of plastic. The PP (Polypropylene) film protects the liquid from seeping into the paper (and thereby burning you) and keeps your warm drink from cooling too quickly. Because there are two different materials, the cups cannot be recycled unless the materials are separated, which is impossible to do by hand and requires a special machine.

Any plastic material with food residues on (or in) it CANNOT be recycled. In order for plastics to be transformed into recycled goods, they must be of decent quality. So, it is important to wash the plastic before it goes in the blue box. 

To sum up – most plastic we use cannot be recycled. The plastic industry knows this and yet continues to extensively market plastic for multiple uses. We users can do more by becoming aware and refusing to use single use plastic or buying items that are inappropriately packaged. However, regulation is the only way to revers the troubling trend towards increasing plastic use. Canada for instance will ban single use plastic in 2021. But this is only a start. 

UPCOMING – 2 more articles. 

The serious concern about micro-plastics

Long-term solutions – yes – we can get out of this mess.