Archive | Packaging

TecEco – CO2 Absorbing Cement

Cement is good for hiding whatever lies underneath. Old mob movies bring to mind laughing goons pouring the wet grey slurry over an unlucky victim, while rotting garbage is buried underground and sometimes paved over. Cement is not seen in a positive light, especially not when it comes to the environment.

The innovative mind of John Harrison thought up the idea of using waste (typically industrial and carbon) in cement, rather than simply producing cement to pave around it. Harrison, managing director at Australia’s TecEco, founded a company with the goal of producing a building material with a positive environmental impact.

Now a brand name, eco-cement is a limestone base (like all cements) mixed with magnesium oxide which is heated in a kiln and turned to powder. This powder will eventually be added to gravel and water to form cement. The magnesium oxide in eco-cement lowers the kiln temperature to about half of that required by the most common cement used in the world: Portland cement. This substantially lowers the amount of energy needed to make eco-cement. Not only that, but eco-cement is more porous than other cements and the unique magnesium oxide/cement mix actually absorbs carbon dioxide from the environment (only for about a year, though)!

In TecEco’s question and answers forum, the company was asked how they came about the idea of “eco-cement”. The answer was that “the idea of using carbon and wastes in building materials came from nature. During earth’s geological history large tonnages of carbon were put away as limestone and coal by the activity of plants and animals building homes such as the shells of shellfish and wood in trees. These same plants and animals wasted nothing as food and nutrients moved around and the waste from one was the food or home of another. John concluded that the answer to greenhouse gas and waste was to use them both in building materials.”

True to this ideal, eco-cement can be completely recycled when a structure is no longer required and reformed again.

As the founder and current chair of the Association for the Advancement of Sustainable Materials in Construction (AASMIC), Harrison is obviously devoted to green building materials. Online he writes; “I believe that our approach to sustainability must be holistic. i.e. a bit like dieting. The pain of either dieting or exercise is less if one does both. So it is with progress towards sustainability – reductions in energy usage as well as massive sequestration, less rubbish (e.g. packaging) as well as new uses for it are required. Improvements in energy use efficiency have been relatively popular as they save money. The harder task I am addressing is how to get the CO2 out of the air.”

The ideas presented by TecEco are catching on and other companies like Zeobond, scheduled to start operations in February, are adopting similar philosophies.

Posted in Animals, Coal, Energy, History, Homes & Buildings, Ideas, Humanities, & Education, Other, Packaging0 Comments

BiodegradableStore – Plastic or Biodegradable?

It’s not hard to understand why food on-the-go is so appealing. Pull a car full of hungry kids into the drive-through at your local burger joint and everyone leaves full and happy. In the mood for a coffee or egg sandwich on the way to work? It wouldn’t be a surprise with dozens of 50ft billboards advertising blended coffees or hot snacks. Plus, it’s quick and easy. Unfortunately, the plastic or Styrofoam containers last much longer than the sandwiches, drinks, burgers or fries that are devoured in a few minutes.

Non-biodegradable plastics will last indefinitely and plastic is everywhere:
According to the EPA “In 2006, the United States generated about 14 million tons of plastics in the municipal solid waste (MSW) stream as containers and packaging, over 6 million tons as nondurable goods [such as diapers and trash bags], and almost 9 million tons as durable goods [appliances].”

Recycling is definitely not eliminating plastics in the environment. The Epa continues to explain that “overall recovery of plastics for recycling is relatively small — 1.4 million tons, or 3.9 percent of plastics generation in 2003”

With this in mind, companies like the BiodegradableStore develop containers made from biodegradable materials. Corn Plastics (PLA) and Bagasse (sugarcane) make up containers that will decompose in 35- 60 days in proper composting conditions.

PLA products look and feel exactly like regular plastic, but since they are made from corn, these items are 100% compostable. The added benefit of corn products is that corn stalks are known to grow quickly and are a renewable resource.

Bagasse, is more heat tolerant than corn plastics (which deteriorate at temperatures above 115 degrees (F)) and is made from sugarcane stalk pulp. Bagasse is comparable to thick paper and is ideal for serving hot drinks. It is even microwaveable. Bagasse takes advantage of sugarcane stalks that are typically discarded during the sugar making process.

There are many incentives for food and beverage distributers to start handing out these products with meals. Consumers will be happier knowing that the countless cups, plates, napkins and even bags, will return to nature and this would be a positive thought to dwell on while the food has left everyone feeling uncomfortably full.

Posted in Composting, Packaging, Recycling3 Comments

Recycling Myths: Smothered in Garbage vs. More Landfill Capacity than Ever

Kids Sort Trash
Lessons start early in life
all recycling is good…

Editor’s note: Recycling is not always the environmentally correct choice. Many items we recycle come from abundant raw materials and are inert and harmless when dumped. It costs more to recycle these than to bury the used and manufacture the new from scratch. Glass is a perfect example; plastic runs a close second. If throwing away glass and plastic causes us to ever run out of sand and oil byproducts we can mine the landfills and recycle them all at once – it would be cheaper and easier than perpetual recycling. There’s plenty of land for landfills, there’s very little hazard remaining in modern landfills, and the economics and the environment often favor using them. Trillions are squandered on needless recycling. So what myths prevent change?

Governments across the European Union and America have announced plans to require more recycling.

The European Union has ordered the citizens of the United Kingdom to roughly double their recycling rates by 2008, while the city governments of New York and Seattle have proposed mandatory expansions of existing recycling programs.

These moves are not based on new developments in resource conservation; instead they – like other mandatory recycling programs – rest on misconceptions of mythic proportions. This article discusses the most egregious of these myths.


Rolling Hillside
All of America’s garbage for the next century could
fit in just one landfill, only about 10 miles square

Since the 1980s, people repeatedly have claimed that the United States faces a landfill crisis. Former Vice President Al gore, for example, asserted we are “running out of ways to dispose of our waste in a manner that keeps it out of either sight or mind.”

This claim originated in the 1980s, when the waste disposal industry moved to using fewer but much larger landfills. The Environmental Protection Agency, the press, and other commentators focused on the falling number of landfills, rather than on their growing overall capacity, and concluded that we were running out of space. The EPA also underestimated the prospects for creating additional capacity.

In fact, the United States today has more landfill capacity than ever before. In 2001, the nation’s landfills could accommodate 18 years’ worth of rubbish, an amount 25% greater than a decade before. To be sure, there are a few places where capacity has shrunk. But the uneven distribution of available landfill space is no more important than is the uneven distribution of auto manufacturing: Trash is an interstate business, with 47 states exporting the stuff and 45 importing it. Indeed, the total land area needed to hold all of America’s garbage for the next century would be only about 10 miles square.


The claim that our trash might poison us is impossible to completely refute, because almost anything might pose a threat. But the EPA itself acknowledges that the risks to humans (and presumably plants and animals) from modern landfills are virtually nonexistent: According to the EPA’s own estimates, modern landfills can be expected to cause 5.7 cancer-related deaths over the next 300 years – just one death every 50 years. To put this in perspective, cancer kills over 560,000 people every year in the United States.

Older landfills do possess a potential for harm to the ecosystem and to humans, especially when built on wetlands or swamps, because pollutants can leach from them. When located on dry land, however, even old-style landfills generally pose minimal danger, in part because remarkably little biodegradation takes place in them.

Modern landfills eliminate essentially any potential for problems. Siting occurs away from groundwater supplies, and the landfills are built on a foundation of several feet of dense clay, covered with thick plastic liners. This layer is covered by several feet of gravel or sand. Any leachate is drained out via collection pipes and sent to municipal wastewater plants for treatment. Methane gas produced by biodegradation is drawn off by wells on site and burned or purified and sold.


United States Recycling Rates
Cardboard is recycled at three times the rate for glass;
the worth of glass recycling is debatable.

Contrary to current wisdom, packaging can reduce total rubbish produced. The average household in the united States generates one-third less trash each year than does the average household in Mexico, partly because packaging reduces breakage and food waste. Turning a live chicken into a meal creates food waste. When chickens are processed commercially, the waste goes into marketable products (such as pet food), instead of into a landfill. Commercial processing of 1,000 chickens requires about 17 pounds of packaging, but it also recycles at least 2,000 pounds of by-products.

The gains from packaging have been growing over time, because companies have been reducing the weight of the packages they use. During the late 1970s and 1980s, although the number of packages entering landfills rose substantially, the total weight of those discards declined by 40 percent. Over the past 25 years the weights of individual packages have been reduced by amounts ranging from 30 percent (2-liter soft drink bottles) to 70 percent (plastic grocery sacks and trash bags). Even aluminum beverage cans weigh 40 percent less than they used to.


Numerous commentators contend that each state should achieve “trash independence” by disposing within its borders all of its rubbish. But, as with all voluntary trade, interstate trade in trash raises our wealth as a nation, perhaps by as much as $4 billion. Most of the increased wealth accrues to the citizens of areas importing trash.

Not only is the potential threat posed by modern landfills negligible, but transporting rubbish across state lines has no effect on the environmental impact of its disposal. Moving a ton of trash by truck is no more hazardous than moving a ton of any other commodity.


In fact, available stocks of most natural resources are growing rather than shrinking, but the reason is not recycling. Market prices are the best measure of natural resource scarcity. Rising prices imply that a resources is getting more scarce. Falling prices imply that it is becoming more plentiful. Applying this measure to oil, we find that over the past 125 years, oil has become no more scarce, despite our growing use of it. Reserves of other fossil fuels as well as other natural resources are also growing.

Thanks to innovation, we now produce about twice as much output per unit of energy as we did 50 years ago and five times as much as we did 200 years ago. Optical fiber carries 625 times more calls than the copper wire of 20 years ago, bridges are built with less steel, and automobile and truck engines consume less fuel per unit of work performed. The list goes on and on. Human innovation continues to increase the amount of resources at our command.


United States Environmental Protection Agecny Logo

Recycling is a manufacturing process with environmental impacts. Viewed across a wide spectrum of goods, recycling sometimes cuts pollution, but not always. The EPA has examined both virgin paper processing and recycled paper processing for toxic substances and found that toxins often are more prevalent in the recycling process.

Often the pollution associated with recycling shows up in unexpected ways. Curbside recycling, for example, requires that more trucks be used to collect the same amount of waste materials. Thus, Los Angeles has 800 rubbish trucks rather than 400, because of its curb-side recycling. This means more iron ore and coal mining, steel and rubber manufacturing, petroleum extraction and refining – and of course extra air pollution in the Los Angeles basin.


It is widely claimed that recycling “saves resources.” Proponants usually focus on savings of a specific resource, or they single out particularly successful examples such as the recycling of aluminum cans.

But using less of one resource generally means using more of other resources. Franklin Associates, a firm that consults on behalf of the EPA, has compared the costs per ton of handling rubbish through three methods: disposal into landfills (but with a voluntary drop-off or buy-back program, and an extensive curbside recycling program.

On average, extensive recycling is 35 percent more costly than conventional disposal, and basic curbside recycling is 55 percent more costly than conventional disposal. That is, curbside recycling uses far more resources. As one expert puts it, adding curbside recycling is “like moving from once-a-week garbage collection to twice a week.”

Book Cover


This view reflects ignorance about the extent of recycling in the private sector, which is as old as trash itself. Scavenging may, in fact, be the oldest profession. In the 19th century, people bid for the right to scavenge New York City’s rubbish, and Winslow Homer’s 1859 etching, Scene on the Back Bay Lands, reveals adults and children digging through the detritus of the Boston city dump. Rag dealers were a constant of American life until driven out of business by the federal Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, which stigmatized products made of recycled wool and cotton. And long before state or local governments had even contemplated the word recycling, makers of steel, aluminum, and many other products were recycling manufacturing scraps, and some were even operating post-consumer drop-off centers.

Recycling is a long-practiced, productive, indeed essential, element of the market system. Informed, voluntary recycling conserves resources and raises our wealth. In sharp contrast, misleading educational programs encourage the waste of resources when they overstate the benefits of recycling. And mandatory recycling programs, in which people are compelled to do what they know is not sensible, routinely make society worse off. Market prices are sufficient to induce the trashman to come, and to make his burden bearable, and neither he no we can hope for any better than that.


Daniel K. Benjamin is professor of economics at Clemson University, a senior associate of the Political Economy Research Center (PERC), and a regular PERC columnist. This essay is adated from a longer paper, “Eight Great Myths of Recycling,” which is available from PERC.

Email the Editor about this Article
EcoWorld - Nature and Technology in Harmony

Posted in Air Pollution, Animals, Business & Economics, Causes, Coal, Conservation, Landfills, Other, Packaging, Recycling, Toxic Substances, Waste Disposal31 Comments

No Posts in Category