The increase in rate is amazing! Unfortunately, so is the amount not recycled. The 180,000 tonnes figure is rounded from 178,333 but had to be an estimate in two significant figures to accommodate for the rough estimate for the 2006 recycling rate that was not available, but presumably along the same line as the 2005 rate supplied by the Japanese Council for PET Bottle Recycling.

Source article was about how fashionable some of Japan’s PET softdrink bottles are, and fashionable they definitely are! I’ve always said about Japanese packaging that it is often so beautiful, I would never want to consume or use whatever it held. This is a perfect example. Unfortunately, often times, it is also often excessive, and in more ways than just human efforts put into it. [Envirostats author]

- Council for PET Bottle Recycling via PingMag in English, Dec 27 2007

This disgracefully and disgustingly useless product was developed in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, on a $50,000 grant from the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA). It was intended for all pets, but mostly for cats who tend to have urinary disorders, though it’s pissing me off so much I’m going to have a urinary disorder myself any time now!

First of all, as if bottled water isn’t bad enough, bottled water for pets is absolutely unnecessary.

Second, how effective a secret ingredient of a “natural attractant” do you think they could have researched to discover on a $50,000 grant, never mind the portion that went towards selling the idea, getting the bottling deal in Ontario, etc.? And what about testing for impact on pets? Do you think you could get any real testing on $50,000 or, more realistically, some small portion of it left after all the other expenditures? Even if they had other incomes, the limited time these grants work on would never allow it.

Thirdly, in my most diplomatic tone, I would hope ACOA reviews its granting criteria if projects like this were getting through. I would hardly call this venture an “opportunity”.

Finally, as a Nova Scotian, I do feel a kinship towards my fellow Atlantic Canadians, but I must say, it was shameful an Atlantic Province came up with this idea, and especially ironic from the only place in North America where you can’t buy a pop can, but only pop bottles due to their fear of having to truck the cans off the island. And speaking of “off the island”, I think these developers should be voted off the Island.

Now what about this stuff that will be sold on the Island? Will they sell them in plastic or glass bottles?

Hey, it might be a pet product, but if you really care about your pet (never mind the environment), don’t buy this crap!

Minh Tan
Envirostats author

- The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), Nov 29 2007

The article said 13 billion plastic bags were handed out in Britain annually that was in dispute with Stat 0435 which stated 17 billion, by the same media source but surely not the original sources (not mentioned). Sure, that is a big difference, percentage or absolute, but the plastic bag problem is far more significant than the discrepancy. Other statistics linking to Stat 0435 will outline some programs that work regarding plastic bags and fees, or alternatives like just bringing a real bag. [Envirostats author]

Opposition to free plastic bags has been growing. In May, traders in the Devon town of Modbury introduced a voluntary ban, since when Hebden Bridge in West Yorkshire and more than 70 other villages and towns have called for, or are considering, a similar move.

This week all 33 councils in London voted to table private legislation to the Commons instituting a ban across the capital on the free distribution of any disposable carrier, whether plastic, paper or biodegradable.

Environmentalists are concerned that light throwaway bags are a waste of precious oil, clog up landfill and harm animals. The plastics industry says that because so many bags are reused they are environmentally friendly. Cloth and paper bags are more damaging, its representatives argue.

Both online polls were conducted before the London decision. BMRB’s poll found that most people would be willing to pay for a sturdy plastic bag that would last up to 10 shopping trips. Most – 61 per cent – would be prepared to pay up to 10p, while 11 per cent would be willing to fork out 20p per bag. Most people would be willing to pay 50p for a reusable woven bag capable of lasting a year.

Shoppers said they currently reused carrier bags for a range of tasks, with the most popular being to line bins, carry shopping on further trips, and to pick up dog and cat mess. Young people aged 16-24 were most likely to reuse bags.

AC Nielsen’s survey asked one question: whether shoppers would change to a different store if their current supermarket stopped giving bags away. Only 16 per cent said that they would go elsewhere. AC Nielsen’s consumer insight manager, Maria Christoferson, concluded: “It suggests that retailers should have greater confidence in the success of such an initiative.”

The pressure group We Are What We Do said it hoped that carrying a carrier bag would become unfashionable. It is urging shops and shoppers to make this the first “plastic bag-free Christmas”. Eugenie Harvey, a co-founder of We Are What We Do, said: “Wouldn’t it be great if carrying a plastic bag was as unfashionable as wearing fur this Christmas?”

BMRB’s survey found a high level of opposition to people against food packaging in general, a problem highlighted by The Independent’s Campaign Against Waste.

Older people who grew up with few plastic wrappers around food were most annoyed about the level of packaging in supermarkets.

- Small poll by the British Market Research Bureau (BMRB), large poll by AC Nielsen, via The Independent, Nov 17 2007

Health Canada stated on Nov 15 they will investigate potential impacts of bisphenol-A. The source article referenced will tell you why, but from my experience and what I have read, I’m asking why? I’m convinced of its harmful impacts. I know the science behind it though I’m not going to write a diatribe here about it. I have dissected the “no harm” studies for work, which I can’t share out of conflict of interest, obviously, and I know why they got to those conclusions. But never mind all that because I can’t use claims I can’t back up here.

What I want to know is even with the mixed studies out there, given the number of studies suggesting bisphenol-A is harmful, why not enact the Precautionary Principle* and just play it safe to recommend a warning against use that states may do this or that rather than proven? How many more might potentially be harmed in the year it takes them to decide? And if it were decided no harm done, then nobody would be hurt anyway. There are also costs, though I hate to put costs on life impacting things.

Anyway, I’m putting my money on bisphenol-A being harmful to health and environment. Let’s come back to this when the decision comes out and see if I were right.

* The precautionary principle is a moral and political principle which states that if an action or policy might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action.

- Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Nov 16 2007

More reveal insight into the recycling business can be found at the source article. Relative contributions of various types of plastics to the recycled plastic market can be found in Stat 0536. [Envirostats author] 

RECYCLERS ALSO have competition from companies that buy up baled bottles for export to Asia. Some 162 million lb of HDPE bottles, almost 18% of what was recovered in recycled programs, was exported in 2005, according to ACC. “We have a tremendous amount of competition from foreign buyers for our raw material feedstock,” KW’s Saunders says.

But with the right incentives, observers think more material can be extracted from the consuming public. This is why Coca-Cola is investing in Philadelphia’s RecycleBank, which operates an incentive-based recycling program in which residents earn coupons redeemable at participating retailers. The company says the program helped boost recycling rates in Philadelphia from 15% to 50%.

Judith Dunbar, director of environmental and technical issues for packaging and consumer products for ACC’s plastics division, sees the need for still more improvement in this area. “Given the supply-and-demand dynamics of recycled feedstock, it’s important that we continue to support collection infrastructure, as it’s often the case that demand outpaces supply,” she says.

Indeed, Saunders points out that only a quarter of the PET and HDPE bottles manufactured in the U.S. today are being recycled. As recycling plants “starve for material,” the rest of this potential feedstock is going to landfills. Saunders contends that it’s up to municipalities like New York City and San Francisco to better advertise their programs and more fully engage the public. “There is not enough scrap material being collected,” he says.

Part of an incredible source article linked to Stats

- Graph by the American Chemistry Council/R. W. Beck via Chemical & Engineering News, Oct 15 2007