Cutlery: Plastic vs. Biodegradable vs. Flatware

Lydia:

I know you are looking for an easy answer. There are no easy answers to this kind of question, because the significance of environmental impacts is in the eyes of the beholder and because the impact information is company specific. There is no good complete world of information about the products and manufacturers that you are considering. Google is the closest thing we have. The answer is what you have to provide for yourself. When you answer the question tell us how you did it and what was important to you and we will learn too. We often see this kind of "what is best ... question." I have participated in many discussions about standards for using so called life cycle analysis and have argued the relevance or lack of relevance of them for many years. The problem is that most non-objective analyzes and many objective analyzes don't evaluate all environmental media, energy, air, water, waste, product toxicity (localized environments) or habitat. Plus, how do we value impacts. Is an air impact that occurs in Hawaii the same as an impact that occurs in the LA basin? What were the impacts of the particular companies that are producing the products? How many tons of air pollutants equates to an acre of habitat loss. In most LCA I have seen they skip media like habitat. So when determining what is best, it is somewhat of an individual decision based on the relative sustainability of an individual company's production and distribution processes.

Hope this helps, really!!
Rod Miller

Senior Environmental Specialist
City of Folsom
Hazardous Materials Division
50 Natoma St. Folsom, CA 95630
Office 916-355-8361
Cell 916-439-0445
Fax 916-355-8351
www.folsomhazmat.com
[email protected]

Hi Rod,

We often see this kind of "what is best ... question." I have participated in many discussions about standards for using so called life cycle analysis and have argued the relevance or lack of relevance of them for many years. The problem is that most non-objective analyzes and many objective analyzes don't evaluate all environmental media, Thank you for spelling all that out - it was needed! But at the same time, behind so many of those questions is the implicit, "If I switch from product A to product B, where B is designated more 'green' than A, I will feel better about myself and can face the environmentalists with the confidence that I'm doing my bit", whereas what ALL of these messages need to say first and foremost, to shout and to yell from the rooftops, is "REDUCE, REDUCE, REDUCE". It won't help the situation more than one or two iotas if we generate a set of replacement industries that manufacture wonderfully green products. The very fact that they manufacture anything means that resources will get irreversibly used up. Slowly, the green-friendly operation of designated products will extend the lifetime of their running materials and may gradually reduce demands on certain energy sources, but if we could stop manufacturing altogether, that step alone would have a far greater impact overnight. If we re-introduced some sense of 'elbow grease' into daily living (cleaning, gardening, fewer power tools), outlawed unnecessary packaging, obliged people to bring their own cutlery to conferences and parties, made unsolicited mail illegal, surtaxed recreational driving, abolished domestic outdoor lighting, reduced garbage collections to one per month and rationed water per head/household, I think the reductions in carbon footprints would be so enormous that everyone would turn round and say, "Why didn't you tell us to do this before? It's so simple." Of course, in tandem we have got to do much more in the way of community services: frequent (small, bio-gas-powered) buses to all parts, composting collections or services, discounts on rain barrels, cloth-bag alternatives in stores, mobile shops, and so on, but that will also be a wonderful opportunity to open up and encourage community neighbourhoods So often this very listserve asks the "What is the best" question, but I rarely see an answer which says, boldly and baldly, "Use LESS". I'm saying it now. Use LESS. "Use LESS" has got to be the top priority for everyone, every time. Yes, it means lifestyle modification, of various degrees depending on the individual. It doesn't mean making a painless change from one (often unnecessary) product to another. It means avoiding many products altogether. There is no sensible palliative like "purchasing carbon offsets" such as some airlines boast; it means not flying the damn things in the first place. It means re-learning how to write letters, recalling how to make our own entertainment, reading science papers instead of going on conference trots, feeding waste food to animals (my Dad used to raise his chicken on fish scraps he collected by bike from a local fishmonger), preparing products in bulk which we decant into our own containers, and limiting very severely what is absolutely un-re-useable and therefore has to be dumped. Interestingly, all this does NOT mean turning the clock back, because we need to involve innovative technology (e.g. developing bio-gas buses, home teleconferencing, simple sterilising units, printing newspapers - if you must have the things - on some kind of papyrus that only lasts for a few days and then becomes hay, to be re-used as compost or as building insulation). "Zero-living", in fact.

Elizabeth Griffin
(Victoria, BC)

Hi Elizabeth 

I fully value and embrace what you're saying here. But guess what? We're fighting a megalithic enemy called the "Consumer Society" and more to the point, the manufacturing monster behind it which has steadily shortened the useful life of all manner of products to force us all to BUY MORE to replace the broken (and unserviceable) ones we can no longer use. I had this very conversation this morning - everywhere you look there are examples of things which we are expected to replace virtually every year !! .. worst offenders I can think of are the computer industry, the home appliance industry and increasingly, the car industry. But these are only my "worst" offenders and there are so many to choose from. The nature of western capitalism strongly inclines manufacturing interests to want to sell more and that also implies repeat sales to the same customers not just new sales to new customers - very manipulative and coercive. So, while we try to educate the consumers of our society to use less, they are virtually forced to continue this run-away pattern of "buy-use-dump-repurchase" because we have no collective power to force a change .. and forget about governments intervening because their fundamental interests are served by the greater taxes they collect from greater purchasing of throw-away products. Someone has to get realistic pretty soon - David Suzuki says all this very succinctly. I say DAVID S. for WORLD PRESIDENT !!

regards
Lisha Kayrooz

Facilities Management Office
James Cook University Australia
Tel: (07) 4781 6535
Mobile: 0438 011 550

Hi Lydia

Not sure how I got this email, but I think I can throw some light on your question. Firstly, though, I'll just note that I have come to this after years of embodied energy research, including developing a new faster and more reliable hybrid methodology. Then I did embodied CO2 research, focusing on building materials for New Zealand (where I live). I later did LCA work. Then I did a PhD to answer the question "How do you build a sustainable house?" That meant having to know what sustainability means, and then figuring out how to measure it. I'm not going to go into that here, except to say that LCA doesn't do the job, as Rod has observed. Again, without going into the long answer about what sustainability is and how to measure it, we can say with confidence that as a first step sustainability HAS to include remaining within the ability of the planet to absorb CO2 that we put into the atmosphere. Otherwise we, and many (if not most) other species are stuffed (so to speak) for probably many millions of years to come, and possibly hundreds of millions of years if we exceed some climate tipping points and achieve a state similar to what happened at the end-Permian. OK, after that long pre-amble, the cutlery that is likely to have the least impact, or to avoid the greatest impact, is (wait for it) plastic! Oh, horrors, how could that be???? The trouble with thinking that making and using things out of crude oil (plastic cutlery) is bad is that we fall into the elementary trap of ASSUMING that if, as a species, we are using up oil too fast and that it will therefore run out, making things out of non-oil materials will slow our rate of oil use. It won't. We also assume that there will be fewer CO2 emissions along with the slower rate or oil use. Unfortunately, our assumptions are wrong. Even more sadly, this applies to most of the participants of what might loosely be called the environmental movement/industry, who fall into the same trap of assuming that efficiency (of any resources use) is good (that it reduces the use of that resources). Jevons, and a whole long list of researchers after him, have demonstrated why efficiency actually increases the use of a particular resource. The trap we fall into is to see high resource use and then take the erroneous step of thinking that little steps of reduction equals an overall large reduction, rather than asking ourselves the question: "What will happen if I (and a bunch of other people like me) use plastic, OR biodegradable OR flatware cutlery?" When we ask such a question, we are obliged to think through the chain(s) of consequences. With the plastic cutlery, we have to think about the state of oil supply and demand in the world, currently. There are lots of reasons to think (and reputable authors to tell us) that oil supply is basically tapped out. In fact, it has been quietly falling for the last 2 or 3 years. A certain proportion of the available supply (call it 85 million barrels a day) is used for transport and machinery fuels, a certain proportion for electricity generation, and a certain proportion for raw material for various products, like plastic cutlery. The same is true for natural gas, although the supply there may still have the ability to expand a bit. What happens to the oil that gets burnt as fuel for vehicles, machines, or electricity, is that CO2 also gets released into the atmosphere, at rates way beyond what the planet can absorb. (Actually, to be within the planet's absorptive ability, we in the western world need to reduce emissions by about 98% on a per-capita basis - not the commendably ambitious but still way to low 60% that you've heard from the UK over recent years). So, oil that gets burnt is CO2 into the atmosphere. Unfortunately, because demand is outstripping supply - driven notably by China and India who are catching up to what we in the West consume (and evidenced by the rising price of oil which serves to trim demand here and there to match the available supply) - any reduction in demand by you and friends choosing not to use plastic cutlery only serves to allow someone else to use the same oil for transport fuel. That is to say, the total oil supply is essentially fixed by geological factors, and a few other things like the resources available to find and produce more oil. Because the supply is essentially fixed and because there is demand or latent demand waiting to slurp up all the supply, all that can be adjusted is how the available oil gets used. The proportion that is fuel gets burnt and puts CO2 into the atmosphere. But, if a greater proportion is used to make plastic products, then less is available to be burnt as fuel and make CO2 emissions. Yes, there are CO2 emissions associated with plastic production and manufacture, but basically, each plastic end product represents carbon stored in that product that has not found its way into the atmosphere. If, at the end of its life, that plastic product is then buried in a landfill (not burnt in an electricity generating plant) then that carbon returns to the ground and never makes it into the atmosphere. Yes, there are other undesirable aspects to plastic, like it can end up in the ocean being eaten by and killing marine life, so it's important that it be landfilled properly. And, yes, there are certain disadvantages to having plastic in your landfill, but they are way lower than the disadvantage of cooking the planet through climate change. So, you can see that by using (and burying afterwards) as many plastic products as possible, the total CO2 emissions from oil get minimized. And, climate change, primarily from CO2 emissions, is by far our biggest threat. So much so that you can basically sideline any other environmental considerations from the use of which-sort-of-cutlery for your conference. Yep, I know it sounds weird, even crazy, and completely counter to conventional 'environmental' thinking, but that is only because conventional environmental thinking hasn't thought everything through properly. Would I use plastic cutlery myself? Actually, no. But there is an answer that is even longer, about that. Should you use plastic cutlery for your conference? If you want to do something that minimizes immediate environmental impact, yes. If you want to avoid endless arguments and possible recriminations at the conference and the distraction that would go with them, no. You'll note that early on I put in a caveat, that plastic cutlery is *likely* to have the least impact. That's because I haven't gone and done all the numbers. It could be that the CO2 from making and washing the flatware is more than the CO2 that would come from burning the oil that didn't go into your plastic cutlery. But I doubt it. Good luck with the conference.

Andrew Alcorn 

Hi Lisha,

OK, I'm up for fighting consumer society, especially if is saves money, which of course it does. Essentially it's as simple as not throwing things out till they wear out, buying things that are built to last (like Doc Martens) and getting second-hand when you can. Of course, those in the consumer rat-race may look on you with scorn but who cares? Or else you can go live somewhere with a thriving ratbag culture. We have great secondhand markets here, and I can satisfy my clothes-buying habit by trading my used stuff for other peoples until it falls to bits, then making stuff out of the bits (some people here make amazing 1-off clothing from recycled fabrics). This is possible when you are not working 70 hours a week to feed a consumer habit, and our markets are wonderful community events.

Lorna

Take a look at http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/279 and please use flatware.

I always refer people to the Union of Concerned Scientists' book "The Consumer's Guide to Effective Environmental Choices." The mini-summary of that book is that most environmental obsessing is wasted as a life cycle analysis shows that most choices make minuscule differences at best. The big things that make a huge difference are

(1) Reduce your need to drive;
(2) Eat less meat and dairy; and
(3) Reduce your dwelling energy demand.

Everything else follows distantly. What I tend to find is that people who want to obsess about paper vs. plastic or reusable forks vs. silverware are the very ones who most urgently insist that they can't do anything about the Big 3 they don't plan on giving up the big house, the big SUVs, or reducing their meat intake.

Lydia,

how about being creative in your marketing and not providing cutlery at all. Serve foods that can be handled with the fingers and an unbleached recycled paper serviette. I've seen some very clever and creative catering in this manner.

Cheers
Helen

Helen Simpson
Managing Director
Simpson Marketing
23 Simon Street
Freshwater 4870
E: [email protected]
T: 0419 188 067
F: 07 40551568

Hi Lisha,

To my opinion we are all part of the consumer society and it is hard to step out from this society. Is it possible to avoid computers, cars, cell phones, travelling, buying food wrapped in plastic etc.? Sometimes yes, sometimes not. It takes willpower, discipline, self-control etc. I hate consumer society. But I often feel powerless. Like an addict. Few years ago I was able to live without so many things, no I'm suddenly unable to live without them. Hm. What kind of person does that make me. I'm trying to do my best, but I often fail because I'm forced to or I'm too lazy or I have desires. Sometimes is also expensive: organic food, clothes and furniture are often too expensive. Change takes willpower and motivation. Awareness alone is not enough. What it works best, I think, is a support system from peers - so that the alternative to consumer society becomes more mainstream.

All the best,
Sabina

Sabina Podjed
Co-founder
People for Earth
T: 00386 4 236 99 99
F: 00386 4 236 99 98
M: 00386 40 333 231
Skype: Spodjed http://twitter.com/Spodjed
http://twitter.com/People4Earth
Website: www.people4earth.net 

I think Andrew makes an interesting argument about the carbon sequestering action of plastic products, but I must take issue with his statement that carbon dioxide emissions are "by far our biggest threat." Carbon dioxide is not "by far" the biggest. The incredible amount of toxic material in our environment is likely an equal and arguably more immediate threat to our health and survival. Nothing remains uncontaminated -- babies are already born with noticeable levels of acute toxins in their bodies. Our food supply is contaminated because we have been pumping poisons into our air, water and earth for a hundred years. We continue to use acutely toxic materials to fill and build our unnatural environment and even medicines, which are supposed to help us, are by-and-large toxic as well. Some people still have mercury fillings! Unfortunately, the environmental discourse has been effectively hijacked by CO2 that the toxic environment catastrophe goes almost unnoticed, which is a shame, because it's a threat that ought to get more attention. Sorry to derail the conversation but I feel I must put this out there.

GREG VALOU

Metro Vancouver Corporate Relations
604-451-6016 
[email protected]

There are several websites coordinated by the Institute for Local Self Reliance (ILSR) that may be helpful. The first site compares petro-plastics to biodegradable plastics, and provides lists of companies that make the resins and products (www.sustainableplastics.org). The second site establishes guidelines for choosing biodegradable products, based on the lifecycle of the product (www.sustainablebiomaterials.org). Reduce is always the first of the three Rs, meaning consume less, and avoid single-use products when possible. Reuse is the next R, which in this case translates to reusable silverware. Finally, if disposable cutlery "must" be used, consider how it was made and where it will end up (in other words, don't buy compostable cutlery unless you are sending it to a composter). Here's a recent article I wrote about this topic: www.jgpress.com/ archives/_free/001661.html

Rhodes

Rhodes Yepsen,
Associate Editor
BioCycle magazine
Advancing Composting,
Organics Recycling & Renewable Energy
(610) 967-4135, ext. 27

Interesting discussion here! Something important to note is that "biodegradable" and "compostable" are NOT the same. Biodegradable usually means that it will simply break down into small plastic pieces in the landfill...not helpful. It's like putting "natural" on packaging: it really doesn't mean much.
"100% Compostable" is the term to look for. That means that, in certain systems, it will break down into organic matter.
Note that neither biodegradable nor compostable cutlery can be recycled in most jurisdictions! In my experience, the best choice is reusable anything despite the washing impact. The second best is tied with recyclable (and actually recycle it) and compostable (and actually compost it). Worst is anything that ends up in the landfill.

Teresa Looy
Compost Program Co-ordinator
Green Action Centre
Canada