Most of us are very familiar with the prefix “bio.” It often indicates a reference to living plants or creatures, and it connotes images of the earth, its many life forms, and perhaps a few scenes from Planet Earth or National Geographic images. But the prefix bio as it’s used in the marketing of new plastics–think: “bioplastics,” “biodegradable plastics,” etc.–is not the innovative, earth-friendly process it sounds like. This is yet another case ofgreenwashing in the plastics industry.
To businesses, the green aura given off by bioplastics is an advantage, helping to reconcile busy consumers to the polymers we use every day. In environmental terms, that’s precisely the problem: they risk absolving us of the need to carry out the basic work of reducing, reusing and recycling. Ultimately, that’s the only way that we’ll deal with our plastics addiction.
A recent article from Bloomberg highlighted how biodegradable plastics may in fact do more harm than good. According to the article, some types of bio–or plant-based–plastics may release more carbon in degradation than their fossil fuel-derived counterparts. Moreover, the author notes how the degradation of plastic is an invisible process, which doesn’t quite evoke the same response as oceans and lands visibly littered with plastic. Without public knowledge of the drawbacks and consequences of plastics sent to indefinitely degrade in landfills (including the majority of innovative plant-based ones), the out-of-sight, out-of-mind mentality will remain securely in place in our high-consumption society.
Emissions from plastic degradation — an invisible process taking place deep underground, and producing no emotive imagery of floating debris, tangled turtles or overflowing waste dumps — may be far more insidious. Bioplastics “are not permanent solutions because they still reaffirm the take-make-waste linear economy mindset,” said Alice Zhu, a researcher into plastic pollution at the University of Toronto.
Again, the solution to the plastic problem is not to continue to produce more or different types of plastic, it’s to produce less. To cut off this stream of pollution at the source. To turn off the tap!
A helpful graphic from European Bioplastics which categorizes the different types of plastics commonly used today by degradability (x-axis) and type of feedstock (y-axis).
December 21st is National Crossword Puzzle Day, so we invite all you cruciverbalists out there to try your hand at our’s: Let’s Get Green and Clean (Fairfax)!
The Verdict: Ultimately, if you’re looking for the most sustainable way to celebrate your holiday, real trees are the way to go. However, there are certainly pros and cons to real and artificial trees–we break them down in more detail here:
The Life Cycle & Environmental Impact of Christmas Trees In terms of sustainability and life cycle, natural (“real”) trees are the clear winner. There is a common misconception that Christmas tree harvesting is detrimental to the environment, which might encourage some folks to opt for a plastic tree which they can reuse year after year. It’s true that the environmental impact of tree farming is complicated–it depends on factors like transportation methods and distance, how trees are watered, and what types of fertilizers or chemicals are used to grow them (Hubbard, 2022)–but according to the National Christmas Tree Association (NCTA), “Real Christmas Trees are a renewable, recyclable, natural product grown on farms throughout North America” (NCTA, 2022). The association emphasizes that trees are not cut down from the forest, but in fact “grown as crops, just like corn or wheat, and raised on a farm. Once they are harvested, new seedlings are planted to replace [them], whereas fake Christmas trees “are a non-renewable, non-biodegradable, plastic and metal product most often made in overseas factories” (NCTA, 2022).
When considering all aspects of their life cycle, many experts believe that artificial Christmas trees actually have a greater negative impact on the environment (Brown, 2017). For example, “In the U.S., around 10 million artificial trees are purchased each season. Nearly 90 percent of them are shipped across the world from China, resulting in an increase of carbon emissions and resources” (The Nature Conservancy, 2019). According to Lienna Hoeg, a Christmas tree specialist in Nova Scotia, “Not many people are aware that for every one acre of Christmas trees, daily oxygen can be produced for 18 people. If you use or purchase an artificial tree, you’d have to use that tree for 20 years for it to have the same environmental impact as one natural Christmas tree” (Hubbard, 2022). Moreover, most artificial trees are manufactured from metal and polyvinyl chloride (PVC), petroleum-derived plastic which often contains phthalates harmful to human health (Wang, 2020). On average, an artificial tree will last 5-7 years, meaning it will eventually need to be replaced. With limited reuse options, artificial trees are often landfilled, where, due to their non-biodegradable, non-recyclable PVC material, they will remain for centuries after disposal (Brown, 2017).
Accessibility of Christmas Trees While it might be the more sustainable option, purchasing a real Christmas tree is not always the most accessible for those wishing to deck the halls. Location, urban density, space limitations, storage concerns, tree maintenance and disposal, and rising costs are just a few of many considerations that go into the purchase decision of a real or artificial tree. For example, for older people or those without the capacity to carry and install a real tree, an artificial tree may simplify their holiday setup. Likewise, artificial trees come in a variety of shapes and sizes, as well as pre-lit selections, which again offers convenience and flexibility for some consumers. Furthermore, artificial trees offer an alternative solution for consumers who live far from Christmas tree farms or do not have the means to transport a real tree back home with them. As far as access to real Christmas trees, in addition to local parking-lot tree sales, trees at home-improvement and big box stores, and tree farms themselves, there are numerous companies across the country who offer tree delivery services for an additional price.
The New Wave of Christmas Trees If you really want to step up your sustainable game for the holiday season, check out a potted tannenbaum. Multiple companies around the U.S. are renting out real Christmas trees, a trend which is growing in popularity. Here’s how it works: consumers can order trees online (where they may browse different species, heights, and prices), the company delivers the potted trees to homes or businesses, and the consumer simply cares for the tree according to the instructions of the rental company. Often, there is a timeline for rental (e.g., 30 days), after which the potted trees are picked up or returned back to the company’s nursery to continue growing until the next holiday season (Hubbard, 2022; Shea, 2021). Cost wise, Christmas trees range in price but are generally comparable to a cut real tree, though without the wasteful disposal at the end of the season. Instead, potted trees offer a sustainable life cycle of growth, rental, return, repeat, and “after about seven years, when the trees are too large for rental, they are planted in the ground” (Platt, 2019). The feel-good factor consumers receive from nurturing a live tree, which will ultimately help to reforest and beautify our lands, is a considerable perk for those looking to make their holiday a little more sustainable!
As the country celebrated another America Recycles Day this past week, we looked back at some of the new reports, major announcements, and state of recycling in the U.S. today.
America (Doesn’t Really) Recycles Day
A Greenpeace report out at the end of last month exposed some ugly truths about plastic recycling in the U.S. which offer a sharp contrast to the celebrations of the 25th annual holiday.
According to the report, despite seeming advancements in the packaging, production, and greater plastic industries, the majority of plastic waste in the U.S. is still not recyclable. Worse still, the portion of plastic that actually is recyclable is being recycled less. Specifically, the report estimates the recycling rate in the U.S. “declined to about 5–6% in 2021, down from a high of 9.5% in 2014 and 8.7% in 2018, when the U.S. exported millions of tons of plastic waste to China and counted it as recycled even though much of it was burned or dumped” (Greenpeace, 2022).
The report went on to discuss the 5 most impactful reasons that plastic recycling is failing in the U.S.:
Plastic waste is too widespread to collect – poor and outdated infrastructure makes collection of plastic waste very difficult.
Mixed plastic waste cannot be recycled together – with hundreds of different types of plastics, mixed recycling is not only impractical, but also not logistically feasible. Other concerns include contamination, limited use, and low demand for recycled plastic end-material.
Plastic recycling is wasteful, polluting, and is a fire hazard – it’s estimated that as much as a third of collected plastic bottles are deemed “contaminated” and consequently landfilled. Additionally, microplastics produced in the mechanical recycling process are discharged with wastewater to pollute the environment. Lastly, highly flammable plastic creates concern for fires at production & recycling facilities and their surrounding communities.
Recycled plastic has huge toxicity risks – plastic products may contain and absorb toxic chemicals (e.g., motor oil, pesticides, bleach); mixed plastics recycling risks contaminating other recyclables in the process. This reality limits the applications for recycled material to be reused in food-grade packaging or bottling.
Plastic recycling is not economical – compared to new plastic production, it is far too costly to collect, sort, truck, and safely reprocess plastic waste.
Ultimately, this jam-packed report reminds us that the recycling industry in the U.S. still has a long way to go. If you’d like to read the report or listen to coverage about it, here are some great additional resources to peruse:
Greenpeace report: Circular Claims Fall Flat Again.
NPR investigative reporter Laura Sullivan explains the plastic problem and new Greenpeace report.
Interview with Lisa Ramsden, WBUR Here & Now from Nov. 2, 2022.
EPA Announces New Grant Funding
This week, the U.S. EPA also announced that applications are now open to access $375 million in grant funding for solid waste infrastructure for recycling projects as well as recycling education and outreach efforts. The funding is open to state, local, and tribal governments. According to the EPA’s press announcement, this fund reflects “the largest EPA investment in recycling in 30 years” (EPA, 2022).
Plastic Sustainability Targets set to be Missed
A report from the Ellen MacArthur Foundation and U.N. Environment Program released earlier this month revealed that a large majority of the world’s largest consumer goods (and plastics) producers are set to miss their 2025 target of using solely recyclable, reusable, or compostable packaging (U.S. News, 2022). Some of the brands–which include companies like Pepsi, Coca-Cola, Mars, Nestle, and Unilever–have demonstrated varied progress on updating their sustainability. But according to a spokesperson from the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, despite progress from some companies, the majority still need to invest more in finding new packaging methods: “Flexible packaging waste is extremely hard to deal with, not generating it in the first place will need to be an important part of the solution…We won’t just recycle our way out” (Bloomberg, 2022).
Today, there seems to be no shortage of options when we browse the aisles of cleaning products at our local stores. But with so many options and flashy marketing, how does the eco-conscious consumer know what products are truly “green”?
“Greenwashing” is a popular marketing strategy employed to make products, or companies, seem more appealing to the conscientious customer base. Terms such as “green,” “natural,” “plant-based,” “non-toxic,” “eco-friendly” and similar buzzwords may catch the eye of well-intentioned individuals who prefer to support environmentally-conscious brands. However, just because products contain one or more of these labels, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they are entirely sustainable or safe. Which is why it is important to read the labels and to think about what qualities of a cleaning product are important to you – do you want a product in less plastic packaging? A biodegradable, non-toxic product? A plant-based product?
Understanding what goes into your product and what to look for on a label can be helpful in making an informed, eco-conscious decision when it comes to your cleaning products. And fortunately, as with many other types of consumer goods, there are also seals of approval from independent, third-party organizations to help you shop for products that meet your values. Next time you shop, keep an eye out for these three seals:
The UL ECOLOGO label signifies that a product has a reduced environmental impact. Factors include manufacturer’s energy consumption, water use, and waste.
TheEWG VERIFIED label attests that a product has no harmful chemical ingredients.
The Safer Choice label is certified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), it reviews a product’s chemical ingredients for human and environmental health, product performance, sustainable packaging and production measures.
If you’d like to read more about this topic, check out this article and news story from NBC Washington.
A new report reveals how Virginia voters feel about plastic pollution and potential policies to address it. The report, a collaboration by Clean Virginia Waterways of Longwood University and the Virginia Coastal Zone Management Program with OpinionWorks, describes findings from a statewide survey of Virginia voters conducted in March, 2022. The opinion research aimed to explore Virginians’ attitudes about several problems facing the state, with a special focus on gauging public opinion on proposed policies related to reducing plastic waste and pollution.
Ultimately, the research group found that “Virginia voters are very concerned about plastic pollution, ranking it higher than climate change and the COVID pandemic” (McKay et al., 2022). Given their concern for the state of the environment in Virginia, researchers asked survey respondents about their opinions on several proposed policies to reduce plastic pollution. They found that:
76% of Virginia voters support a policy to require less plastic in packaging
71% of voters support shifting the costs of recycling from taxpayers to the producers of the plastic waste
65% of voters support deposits on beverage bottles, cans, and containers (i.e., a “bottle bill”)
63% of voters support a cigarette litter fee
63% of voters support a ban on polystyrene (foam) food and beverage packaging
61% of voters support banning single-use plastic grocery and shopping bags
And 47% of voters support a 5-cent fee on single-use grocery and shopping bags.
The findings of this survey not only reveal the deep concern Virginia voters have for their environment, but they also demonstrate voters’ readiness to support public policies to address plastic pollution in their communities.
McKay, L., Register, K. and Raabe, S. (2022). Plastic Pollution: Virginia’s Voters Support Action: 2022 Public Perception Survey. Prepared for the Virginia Coastal Zone Management Program.
Trees do more than give you the warm and fuzzies because they house wildlife and look pretty. Trees are essential for life; they filter water and produce oxygen, which all animals—including us!—need. But wait, there’s more!
Not only do trees provide resources we need to survive, but they also improve mental health. The latest research tells us that daily contact with trees may reduce risk of depression.
Still not convinced trees are the bees knees? Trees also reduce noise by absorbing and deflecting sound, boost the economy by increasing property values (up to 15-20%!), and calm traffic. One study found a 46% decrease in car crashes after landscape improvements (e.g. trees) were installed; while other studies found 5-20% crash reduction after similar green improvements.
Next time you think of trees, it’s not just the Lorax saving trees from being turned into thneeds. Trees are a gift that keep on giving, to wildlife, to us, and to the economy. Investments in trees are an investment in our future. Check out our friends, Plant NoVA Trees to learn more about trees and how to rescue them!
Want to get in on green action in Fairfax? There are so many roads to take if you want to get involved in cleaning up your community! Here are three of our favorite roads that lead to a cleaner and greener Fairfax.
Route 1: Contact your county supervisor (and look them up here)– they’ve got all the details in your area and may even have a cleanup planned!
Route 2: Find your local community center by putting your address into this map. Oftentimes, they host their own cleanup or know a group that puts one on.
Route 3: Know of any “Friends of” Organizations? We have a few listed on our website. These groups get down and dirty when it comes to getting Fairfax Clean and Green.
No matter what road you take, there will be a green impact!
Ever struggle to remember your reusable bags? #SAME. We have a fool-proof way to never be caught empty handed (or worse, hands full of plastic!!) again.
Step 1: Keep your reusable bags in your car if you drive to the grocery stores; or, keep your bags near your keys if you walk!
Reusable grocery bags living their best lives. Photo credit: Emily Foppe
Step 2: Load up your groceries into your swag bags, then get them ready for the journey home.
Photo credit: Emily Foppe
Step 3: After unloading your groceries at home, hang your empty bags on the door so you remember to take them out to your car next time you go out! Or, keep near the door for your next walk to the store.
Reusable bags right on the door to be taken out to the car next trip out. Photo credit: Emily Foppe
Welcome to the 2022 Virginia General Assembly Periodic Updates!
The legislative outlook may be a little different this year, but there are reasons to be optimistic. Waste reduction legislation has been gaining traction around the country and we have a few bills to follow here in Virginia!
But, this email is going to get you primed for the next 60 days, and remind you about how you can get ahold of your legislator, how you can tweet at them, as needed, remind you about our legislative tracker that is usually reserved for bills having to do with litter and recycling, but honestly we are always interested in the big picture of Virginia’s environment, and believe that everything is connected–Economy, Environment, Equity, and Environmental Health!
Our friends at Virginia Grassroots have a great list of all the legislators’ twitter handles and email addresses so that you can ping them as needed. Don’t forget to thank them when they vote for or champion GOOD legislation! Save this link, although we will try to remember to put it in all our missives.
Speaking of good legislation–there are 3 EPR (Extended Producer Responsibility) bills, a bottle bill, some good energy efficiency enabling legislation, some quality wildlife corridor legislation and funding opportunities and more but we’ll start laying those out in future emails once they are all assigned to committees, and we know more about them, because honestly, it is like drinking from a firehose.
Let’s go right to a bill being heard TOMORROW!
We are a little curious/concerned about this bill (SB 250) because we are a county with an aging “Waste To Energy” facility, “Ash generated by incinerators and energy recovery facilities (also known as INCINERATORS THAT BURN YOUR TRASH SO IT SEEMS LIKE IT JUST DISAPPEARS INSTEAD OF TURNING IT INTO TOXIC ASH AND GAS) that are subject to this section shall be exempted from the annual fees assessed under this section.”
This bill also increases the fee for a composting facility from $1,200 to $5,500. Do we really want to make it somehow cheaper to burn trash and organics, and more expensive for localities to compost, because it’s already basically commercially impossible due to the lack of affordable land for a facility in Northern VA, as well as ENDLESS HOA restrictions about simple backyard composters. We are in the game of reducing barriers and increasing access to solid waste disposal. This bill will be heard in The Senate Agriculture Committee (committee members linked here–save for future reference–this is a busy committee for enviro stuff!) tomorrow (1/18/22) so please do contact Senator Surovell to ask him about it!
As we add more bills into our “support” and “not support” list, plus some more that we are watching, they will be up on our LitterFreeVA.org page and bills will be added and updated on a once they are assigned to committee. We’re a little short staffed this year so if you want real time information on all the bills at any moment, you’ll want to go right to the source–The General Assembly Website.
But, here’s the thing– We need to be playing offense at the same time we’re playing defense. There’s a thing in hockey where you pull your goalie out and have them play offense in order to have more skaters on the ice but that leaves your goal untended. We can’t be distracted by the big things like Andrew Wheeler and RGGI, and some of the other egregious threats to the environment, and not pay attention to the things happening quietly, right under our noses.
Eyes on the prize, friends, and the prize is Virginia. It is Virginia’s environment, business climate, school system, and its recent movement toward human and civil rights, increasing the minimum wage so people can afford to work and live and contribute to the Commonwealth, and all the work that we all have done in the last several years to move Virginia forward in so many areas, not just environmental–because it is all connected!
And finally, we’ll leave you with this thought, on this important day of commitment to Civil Rights, and Public Service, and beg not for something as banal as donations or shares or clicks, but that you pay attention this year and really stay on your elected officials at the local level, state level and national level because who knows what our communities, our state, our country, our climate, our world– will look like in the next 5 years if we don’t:
“Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion. Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing. He is not a good man who, without a protest, allows wrong to be committed in his name, and with the means which he helps to supply, because he will not trouble himself to use his mind on the subject.” John Stuart Mill, 1867
