Bruce 1

The Plastic Pit in our Plastic World

It should be clear to any developed nation's citizens that they are enveloped by plastics.

Bottles, bags, paints, TVs, flashlights, hockey sticks, cell phones, carpet weave, light switches,

even book covers. All these things can be made of or contain plastics, and I shouldn't have to tell

you that this tiny list isn't even 1% of its myriad forms. Even the school desk of the humble

college I attend as of this writing is made of only two things: Metal and Plastic. However, what

most of the aforementioned citizens don't know is where plastic comes from, how its made, and

why this ubiquitous might disappear. Bad enough for the material needy, worse still for those

who enjoy modern medicine seeing as 100% of all non-herbal pills use plastic to hold together,

release at the right times, and even protect it. Petroleum is the reason a lot of things in our

modern lives function - and plastic is no different. When petroleum is gone, plastic production

will be too, and to beat the most dire of predictions of oil's staying power we'll have to come up

with something fast. I'll be looking at the most well developed and promising paths to stop the

extinction of plastics: Recycling, Bioplastics, and Synthetic Oil.

Nearly all plastics today still use the same method since their conception. Petroleum,

coal, and natural gas all contain hydrocarbon monomers taken out during refinement processes.

The monomers can be linked together to form polymers. They may be linked by open carbon

bonds or by ridding the monomer of one or more hydrogen atoms in favor of other atoms (or just

open carbon space), changing its properties to suit our designs. The polymer fabric is then

shredded into "pellets" to be melted down and shaped into a manufacturer's wishes. The pellet

system is very helpful to recycling, allowing for easy dismantling that costs only 2/3 the energy

to make the plastic material (Umbra Fisk).

 Bruce 2

Despite the advantages, plastics have the lowest recycle rate of all materials. Lying at

only 6.9%, plastic has just 1/3 the recycling rate of the second lowest major material, glass,

21.8% (Sustainable Plastics?). PVC (PVC pipes, linoleum tiles, credit cards, cooking oil bottles,

siding, shower curtains), the most harmful plastic yet made, is in fact not recyclable at all. No

matter the solution to the plastic-petroleum problem, recycling what we have already made

should be a top priority. Emily Lupton suggests a national mandate similar to one already passed

in a few states.

"The basic provision of such a bill would be an initial small charge on certain plastic

containers when purchased, perhaps 5 or 10 cents, which would be refunded when the

containers are returned to a recycling center. In the 11 states with bottle bills, there are

higher rates of recycling than in other states. If this method were adopted nationally, the

increase in recycling would be immense." (Peril of petroleum)

Unfortunately, lack of knowledge prevents us from anticipating the full consequences of

mixing bioplastics and plastics in the recycling process, and the two are difficult to differentiate

in the already labor-intensive sorting of the different types of plastic (you know, the 3 arrows

with the number in the middle). For the time being bioplastics are better left to a "commercial

composting facility", or simply the trash can (Econundrum).

It is not at all ridiculous to presume that a 100% recycling rate of plastics should be

infinitely reusable, disregarding PVC (and others that release harmful and uncapturable

molecules) and "Thermally-Set" plastics (which cannot return to pellet form, their completely

infused). As original petroleum plastics swallowed up by natural disasters, backwoods burnings,

and the occasional never-to-be-found-again littering, we could simply phase them out with other

new-found compounds (biomaterials or otherwise). If done right, this could cut the entire future
 Bruce 3

impact that plastics have on our dwindling oil reserves. As it stands, about 8% of the world's

annual withdraws are used for plastics: 4% as "feedstock" material, and another 4% used for the

energy to make it (Umbra Fisk). At a meager 6.9% recycling rate, its easy to see the original 107

million pounds of plastic produced in North America alone (Peril of petroleum) as a completely

unnecessarily and unacceptably high number.

As already mentioned above, bioplastics are better left to the trash, and not all of them

can even biodegrade. If you ask what a bioplastic is, you wont really find a good answer. If you

ask what is a bioplastic's purpose, however, then the answer is singular and simple. Renewable

source plastics. In order to achieve the variations of use that plastic enjoys, they have to tinker

with myriad ideas, always involving some kind of renewable biomass (something that can be

grown in mass) and even genetically modified organisms to succeed; lending itself to the

confusion of what a bioplastic even is, since its harder to pin down its creation and ultimately it's

make-up. A good example would be the story of Anthony Sinskey and Oliver Peoples in One

Word: Bioplastics. Sinskey sequenced the genes of R. eutropha in 1984, which turned out to be a

bacteria that naturally produced "polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA) — a naturally occurring form of

polyester — starting with only sunlight, water, and a carbon source." In 1994 Sinskey and

Peoples founded Metabolix and set out to ramp up this unique attribute. Using now dated

metabolic engineering and 15 years of development they succeeded in making a strain of E. coli

that could produce PHA "at levels several-fold higher than [the] naturally occurring bacteria"

(One Word).

With all the offshoots of bio/earth-friendly ideas branching out in confusing directions, it

is easy to see why no single good idea has taken hold of the markets and revolutionize our plastic

use. A more direct method is being researched by LS9, the Renewable Petroleum Company™. In
 Bruce 4

2007 LS9 received 5 million dollars in start-ups for their path: Synthetic Petroleum (Biofuels

start-up). Basically, make oil. Synthetic Petroleum, being that it is petroleum, would provide

more energy that ethanol, and supposedly provide it with a lesser carbon foot print than it's

ground dug ancestor. However, LS9 isn't just trying to make new petroleum, but use "synthetic

biology" to get it done. Essentially, rather than modify and feed an organism to work as a

miniature factory, they'll replicate the processes organisms use in more traditional ways. As the

article Biofuels start-up nabs $5 million in funding, likes to put it: "In a sense, LS9 will make

imitation petroleum with imitation animals." LS9 didn't completely narrow it's sights however.

On January 28th, 2010 LS9 - in conjunction with Keasling Lab at the DOE’s Joint BioEnergy

Institute - announced that they could make renewable diesel in a one-step process.

"Consolidated bio-processing — converting pretreated biomass in one step to a

renewable fuel, eliminating the two-step procedure of using acids or enzymes to extract

sugars, and then fermenting sugars into fuel — is considered a critical path element in

driving down the costs of cellulosic biofuel towards cost parity with gasoline, and has

been widely described as “the holy grail of biofuels”." (JBEI, LS9, CBP)

On a personal note pretreated counts as a step, but I won't fight it here. Once again, E.

coli came to the rescue, this time designed to secrete diesel which floats to the surface to be

harvested; showing that LS9 isn't entirely stuck in their traditional concepts. Using this new

'Consolidated bio-processing', LS9 will continue to pursue straight petroleum. The ability to be

built anywhere and cut down on transport costs, undercut ethanol and lower the price of foods

used to make ethanol, and requiring no change in current vehicular engines, would make this

break through massive success in America - Global Warming or not.

 Bruce 5

Unfortunately, it is unlikely that 'renewable petroleum' means 'sustainable plastic'. There

are two reasons for this: 1) It's already been said that 8% of the annual petroleum goes to

plastics, and we obviously don't need more, so it can and will go to fuel. 2) It's already been

proven that we don't actually require any more plastics other than replacements for the harmful

and unrecyclable, solidifying that more petroleum can't solve petroleum's problems. Case in

point for reason number one, and case in point that we truly are a wasteful band of creatures can

be seen in Justin Berton's article Continent-size toxic stew of plastic trash fouling swath of

Pacific Ocean. This "Great Pacific Garbage Patch" is roughly the size of Texas, estimated to

weigh 3.5 million tons (to put that number in perspective, that's 7000000000, or 7 billion,

pounds), and has been growing since the 1950's. 80% of the litter comes from the land, though it

is disturbing to read that "ships drop the occasional load of shoes or hockey gloves into the

waters (sometimes on purpose and illegally)" (Toxic Stew). As Chris Parry, public education

program manager with the California Coastal Commission in San Francisco said, "That's what

makes a potentially toxic swamp like the Garbage Patch entirely preventable" (Toxic Stew).

"Sea turtles mistake clear plastic bags for jellyfish. Birds swoop down and swallow

indigestible shards of plastic. The petroleum-based plastics take decades to break down,

and as long as they float on the ocean's surface, they can appear as feeding grounds.

"These animals die because the plastic eventually fills their stomachs," [Warner Chabot,

vice president of the Ocean Conservancy] said. "It doesn't pass, and they literally starve

to death."" (Toxic Stew)

Both Chabot and Parry agree that it simply cannot be cleaned up. They also appear to

agree that banning plastics as food packaging and bagging is one of the main ways to cut down

on the amount of plastic making its way to the ocean. Though I cannot argue that it wouldn't
 Bruce 6

help, I do argue that this would hardly be a problem if humans didn't idiotically litter in the first

place. Other than the harmful types, plastic has never been the problem. It has been, like so many

other things we've discovered, simply been used incorrectly and without caution. Fortunately

Chabot saves himself, adding, "or require the substitution of biodegradable materials, increase

recycling programs and improve enforcement of litter laws."

A synthetic, sustainable oil would effectively end the extinction of plastic as we know it,

assuming enough factories were made around the world since they will likely want to use it more

for jet fuel and cars first, plastics second. Bioplastics wont require petroleum at all, will very

likely be able to degrade in your home garden in the near future, and excitingly may be able to be

recycled and mixed with original plastics. And finally recycling, which is better in every way to

making plastic, requires no research or scientific breakthroughs, and may have prevented/still

can prevent the notion that plastics aren't sustainable on their own. They remain unsustainable

because we throw it away and make more. As I said before, it's feasible to nearly bring plastic

production to stand still and expect plastic to be around for a lengthy amount of time. If you

thought 107 million pounds was an "unnecessarily and unacceptably high number", then try this

on for size: "Every year, more than 540 billion pounds of plastic are produced worldwide" (One

Word). It is clear to me that the simplest, easiest, and most efficient way to solve the 'Plastic-

Petroleum Problem' is to just recycle it. Even out of these amazing advancements in technology

my pick is with recycling, and in the near future the rest of the world might be forced to agree

with me. But as a thought experiment, what would happen if we used all three? Synthetic Oil

factories around the world would decrease the price of gas, especially to anything that flies, and

allow us to better sustain it while ethanol and other replacement fuels are being perfected. More

importantly, 'Consolidated bio-processing' could be a technique transferred over to these new

 Bruce 7

replacement fuels, freeing up their strangling hold on our farms and reducing the cost of food

practically worldwide. Original oil harvesters can still produce on a less accelerated rate, and will

likely be the main producers of non-recyclable plastics. With a new recycling management

system, possibly made nation wide, with more recycling plants, plants with the ability to recycle

all the different types and not just 2 or 3, and a more efficient system set up much like water and

electricity, all of your water bottles, TVs, computers, cell phones, could all come right back in

your house hold in newer and advanced forms. This leaves Bioplastics with the freedom to cast

off its cripplingly large number of offshoots and research paths to narrow their search on how to

rid the world of harmful and non-recyclable plastics with eco-friendly and bio-degradable ones

that still perform their advanced functions. The pellets of the original plastics will finally

disappear, but not for hundreds of thousands of years, and if we have an earth left to live on,

we'll probably have a fool proof answer by then.

 Bruce 8

Works Cited

Butler, Kiera. "Econundrum: Recycle Plant-Based Plastics?" Sustainable Biomaterials

Collaborative. 29 Mar. 2010. Web. 27 Apr. 2010.

<http://www.sustainablebiomaterials.org/index.php?q=node/111>.

Berton, Justin. "Continent-size Toxic Stew of Plastic Trash Fouling Swath of Pacific Ocean -

SFGate." Featured Articles From The SFGate. 19 Oct. 2007. Web. 30 Apr. 2010.

<http://articles.sfgate.com/2007-10-19/news/17266845_1_ocean-debris-great-pacific-

garbage-patch-plastic-bags>.

"Environment." Home. Web. 30 Apr. 2010.

<http://www.biomebioplastics.com/environment.php>.

Fisk, Umbra. "Umbra on Oil and Plastic | Grist." Grist | Environmental News, Commentary,

Advice. 14 Mar. 2007. Web. 27 Apr. 2010. <http://www.grist.org/article/plastics/>.

Kanellos, Michael. "Biofuels Start-up Nabs $5 Million in Funding - CNET News." Technology

News - CNET News. 13 Mar. 2007. Web. 30 Apr. 2010. <http://news.cnet.com/Biofuels-

start-up-nabs-5-million-in-funding/2100-11392_3-6166790.html?tag=mncol;txt>.

Lane, Jim. "JBEI, LS9 Reengineer E.coli to Produce Renewable Diesel Directly from Biomass;

CBP Arrives in the Drop-in Sphere." Biofuels Digest - Biofuels, Biodiesel, Ethanol,

Algae, Jatropha, Green Gasoline, Green Diesel, and Biocrude Daily News. 28 Jan. 2010.

Web. 30 Apr. 2010. <http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/blog2/2010/01/28/jbei-ls9-

reengineer-e-coli-to-produce-renewable-diesel-directly-from-biomass-cbp-arrives-in-the-

drop-in-sphere/>.

Lupton, Emily. "Peril of Petroleum-based Plastics." Sustainable Biomaterials Collaborative. 14

Jan. 2010. Web. 27 Apr. 2010. <http://www.sustainablebiomaterials.org/index.php?

q=node/90>.

Myers, Jack. "How Is Plastic Made from Petroleum? - Science Questions - HighlightsKids.com."

Welcome to HighlightsKids.com! Web. 27 Apr. 2010.

<http://www.highlightskids.com/Science/ScienceQuestions/h1sciQmakingPlastic.asp>.
 Bruce 9

Oseguera, Osa. "Beyond the Age of Innocence In Bioplastic : Greentech Media." Green

Technology | Cleantech | Green Energy - News, Research, & Resources. 24 Mar. 2010.

Web. 27 Apr. 2010. <http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/beyond-the-age-of-

innocence-in-bioplastic/>.

"PVC: The Poison Plastic." BE SAFE Precautionary Campaign. Web. 27 Apr. 2010.

<http://www.besafenet.com/pvc/Our_Health_and_PVC.html>.

"Section C Petroleum As A Building Source." Chemistry in the Community Chemcom. New

York: W H Freeman & Co, 2006. 216-33. Print.

Trafton, Anne. "One Word: Bioplastics." MIT. 17 Nov. 2009. Web. 27 Apr. 2010.

<http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/bioplastics.html>.