I’ve owned three EV’s over the past 6 years and enjoyed all of them for different reasons. Allow me to explain why the BMW is in a class of its own. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve loved my Tesla’s, but the build quality and driving exhilaration of the BMW is, in my view, superior. Even the tech and sound system (Harmon Kardon upgrade) is better, which surprised me.
My EV journey started with a brand new Tesla Model 3 Performance. I replaced this with a five year old secondhand Tesla Model S 75D with 40k on the clock. I’ve just replaced this with a year old BWM i4 40 M Sport with about 10k on the clock.
I chose the Tesla M3 because at the time this was the best performance EV for under £55k. There were not many on the road in the UK, but now they’re pretty common. I also liked having the reliable Tesla supercharging network, but this is now being opened-up in the UK to all EV owners in 2024. The Tesla M3 has breathtaking acceleration, handling and it’s jam-packed with clever technology and an excellent sound system. I had to hand it back as this was a company car. I then bought a £40k Model S with my own cash. Part exchanged it for the BMW two years later and annoyingly the value had dropped to £15,500! Terrible depreciation due to all EV prices being reduced. However, this did mean I picked-up a £60k+ BMW i4 for about £40k and it’s like a new car with 2 years warranty remaining.
I also considered Volvo’s (Swedish/Chinese owned) Polestar 2, but for me the servicing network is inadequate and the brand sill unproven. It’s good value, looks fabulous and drives really well, but not as good as a BMW i4.
Tesla Model S 75D 2017
The Model S is a very good-looking, comfortable car with lots of practicality and loads of boot, frunk and passenger space. It performs well, but the range on mine was only about 175 miles. It also started to develop several faults – three new drivers door handles in a year, replacement of the steering rack, a faulty passenger door mirror and fogging-up of the rear view camera when very wet. The satnav maps were slow to load and the FM radio often didn’t work. Most of these faults were covered by my extended warranty, but frustrating regardless with a vehicle with only 65k, when I PX’d it.
The BMW i4 is almost faultless. It looks magnificent, has plenty of space, an ample sized wide hatch-back boot (sadly no frunk yet) with precision engineering as you’d expect from a world class German manufacturer. The use of quality materials, great design and layout make this EV a joy to own. The infotainment is the best I’ve experienced with a crystal-clear wide screen and intuitive, easy access to everything you need while driving safely with many back-up buttons and dials. A perfect combination. The Harmon Kardon 17-speaker sound system with boot-mounted base unit is extraordinary as is the legendary Hans Zimmer EV sound affects available in comfort and sport modes. A little odd at first, but puts a huge smile on your face! It also has adaptive steering and suspension, which makes driving and handling in any condition and on any road surface relaxing and fun in equal measure.
BMW i4 edrive40 M Sport 2022
BMW has been making cars for nearly 100 years and they know a thing or two about how to design and build thrilling performance vehicles, which stand the test of time. Tesla on the other hand is a great tech company, but has only been making cars since 2008 (Model S launched in 2012). This lack of expertise shows in the way the vehicles are set-up and built around the driving and ownership experience.
Both companies and products have their unique strengths, but as a big fan of Tesla to move back to BMW speaks volumes. This will be my 6th BMW and they just keep getting better.
All too often going paperless is championed by businesses wanting to move their customers on-line to reduce cost, with misleading emotional statements of lower environmental impacts. However, the benefits and effectiveness of one medium over the other is not that clear cut. Furthermore, the impact of digital communications is not consequence free, too often ignored and not fully understood.
Since the invention of the first personal computer in the mid 1960’s, the world of digitisation has transformed technology to be able to process, store and access data instantly anywhere on the planet. The pace of change has been breathtaking, and that change is only going to quicken thanks to the voracious demand for high-speed mobile and virtual computing to power our interconnected world and the Internet of Things (IoT), Artificial Intelligence (AI), Augmented Reality (AR), Virtual Reality (VR), automation and robotisation. Much of this has had a positive impact on our lives thus far, particularly connecting people over long distances. Unfortunately, it’s not all good news!
The environmental impacts of digital
The environmental impact of this digital evolution cannot be ignored. The ICT industry accounted for 4-6% of global electricity use in 2020, which is more than 2% of global greenhouse gas emissions. With increasing demand, the ICT industry is expected to increase its global electricity use over the next decade. (Source 1) Coupled with the energy requirements to power digital communications, the demand for non-renewable rare earth minerals is growing at a comparable rate, creating a huge waste challenge for future generations. (Source 2)
The electronic waste problem is colossal and growing quickly. In 2019, the industry produced 53.6 million tonnes of waste globally. When precious materials like iron, copper and gold are thrown away, this fuels more extraction through mining and negative environmental and social impacts. This problem is compounded by the fact that only 42.5% of e-waste was collected for recycling in Europe in 2020. (Source 3)
Then there is the impact on our health. Decreasing levels of concentration, a decrease in memory retention and a negative impact on our wellbeing. All this takes its toll on society and leads to a potential breakdown in meaningful and relevant communication. (Source 4)
Printed textbooks make a return to education
Sweden was one of the first European countries that adopted digitisation within its educational curricula in 2018. It has now announced going back to using printed textbooks in an attempt to improve education. Swedish Minister of Education, Lotta Edholm, announced in an article published in Göteborgs-Posten, June 2023, that it was proven by studies presented by the Swedish National Agency for Education that students who are reading textbooks can understand better than those who are using digital content. (Source 5)
Reading printed media is considered to be more relaxing, engaging and less distracting too. Books also help lock-up carbon long term, if not forever, and don’t require constant energy to be powered. They’re also easy to gift and share physically, but not so easy to store and distribute quickly. It’s good to see that books are making a come-back because people, including Gen-Z consumers, appreciate their intrinsic value.
Printed media & AR – photo by Domtar
Other digital impacts
It is also worth bearing in mind that just because something is digital, like a bank statement, airline or concert ticket does not mean it will not be printed onto paper. Anything digital consumes data and requires storage (often permanent), and therefore energy and physical resources to maintain. Data hubs can be powered by renewable energy, but we are a long way from achieving this ideal. Emails, photos, text and voice messages and huge video files consume massive resources and as we move to increased graphic processing power requirements for AI, AR and VR, this will only escalate.
Then there’s the important question of security. Digital data can be easily corrupted, hacked and in the wrong hands cause serious issues over intellectual property and identity theft. Losing power is also a risk and any digital medium could be vulnerable. Of course printed documents can be stolen, left on a train, or scanned and shared so neither solution is perfect. However, digital theft is increasingly common and is much faster and harder to detect and control.
Printed media – what’s the environmental impact?
Between 2005 and 2020, European forests, which provide 90% of the virgin wood fibre to the European paper industry, grew by 58,390km2. This is an area greater than Switzerland and amounts to about 1,500 football pitches of forest growth every day. (Source 6)
Providing the printed paper material is from managed forest sources, examples; FSC, PEFC or SFI certification, little or no deforestation has taken place. On the contrary, the volume of wood fibre is growing whilst at the same time biodiversity and soil health are being sustained and regenerated. This prevents soil erosion and because trees absorb CO2 they act as a carbon sink, whilst producing oxygen. Water is consumed in the making of paper, but over 90% is returned to the environment once filtered. Paper is made from the parts of the tree that can’t be used to make timber products, thereby ensuring the minimum amount of wastage possible. Trees are thinned from the forest to ensure healthy growth supported by careful replanting to minimise the impacts on surrounding flora and fauna.
European paper mills produce 54.6% of their power on-site, of which more than 96% is generated through highly efficient CHP plants. Modern mills are also highly efficient in terms of their water and energy requirements, which further contributes to reducing their environmental impacts. The paper industry is the biggest user of renewable bioenergy in Europe. On average 61% is generated from biomass, 33% from gas and the balance from coal and other fossil fuels. (Source 7)
The direct CO2 emissions of Manufacturing Industries and Construction in Europe accounted for 16.9% of total emissions in 2021. Falling within that category, the pulp, print and paper sector is one of the lowest CO2 emitters at only 0.9%. In comparison, the transport sector accounted for 30.1% of total CO2 emissions and the residential sector accounted for 11.9% of CO2 emissions in 2021. (Source 8)
Consumer research
According to recent research, paper is the preferred material of choice when we consider packaging compared to plastic, glass and metal. From fifteen key attributes, paper scored the highest out of the majority including; recyclability, compostability and optimisation. In Europe, paper packaging also has the highest recycling rate of any material at 82%. Research shows that despite their preference for paper, 85% of European consumers believe forests are shrinking and a further 82% believe the recycling rate is below 60%. Research reveals that 65% of European consumers prefer to read printed books, 52% believe children learn better from printed materials and 76% would like the right to choose how they receive their communications – printed or digital. (Source 9)
Why are consumers confused?
Misconceptions are born from spurious communications such as ‘don’t print this email, save a tree’ or ‘switch to digital billing, save a forest’. These inaccurate statements have been shared by many businesses with millions of customers over many years. It’s no wonder that the majority of people are misinformed and confused. This type of greenwashing conflicts with European advertising regulations, the Green Claims Code and the European Green Deal, companies in the UK and Europe could face a fine if claims are not factually correct or are unsubstantiated.
Here’s a good example where the German retail group, REWE decided to remove printed leaflets and justify this decision stating that this would save forests. So outraged by this greenwashing, Zipcon decided to make this short video in English and German to expose them and communicate the facts.
What should we choose – digital or printed media?
There is no right answer!
Both are relevant and should be selected on a case by case basis and perhaps even combined where appropriate. The wide acceptance of QR codes, since COVID, has enabled most people with a smartphone to trust scanning objects and images to download, or find out more information and even create augmented and virtual experiences. These codes can also be embedded within images and artwork to make seamless communications which can add another dimension to communication, which must be a positive development, thanks to digitisation in concert with printed media.
Printed media & AR – Photo by Coleção
Measuring the life-cycle of digital verses printed media is highly complex and a moving target depending upon energy supply, supply chain variables and other relevant impacts. LCA is important, but any data extrapolated will always be an average and unlikely take account of all important factors such as pollution and social impacts.
Conclusion
The reality is we all need to be more frugal with non-renewable resources, particularly those that require extraction because of the increasing global population, rapid growth of technology and the mounting demands being placed on the environment. Everything that’s man-made requires energy and until we replace fossil-based materials to power and service our economy, global warming and pollution will not be reversed.
Our objective should be to work in balance with nature, respecting biodiversity, social inclusion and moving toward a regenerative approach to producing food, energy and renewable materials, like paper, powered by the abundance of solar, wind, hydro and other clean energy sources.
Of the 260 million tons of plastic the world produces each year, only about 10% is recovered, recycled and reused. The balance is incinerated, landfilled or ends up contaminating oceans, waterways, the atmosphere and soil. Every piece of plastic we ever produced still exists today, unless it has been incinerate, and it takes 100’s of years for most fossil-based plastics to breakdown. It is possible that when some plastics degrade, they can become micro-plastics, which can then enter the food chain. The impact of micro-plastics on human health are currently being investigated, but the early prognosis is not encouraging.
According to Plastics Europe, the construction sector is responsible for about 20% of plastic consumption. I have spent most of my life working in packaging, which is by the far the biggest consumer of plastic and at least double that of construction. Retailers and brands are working hard to make changes to meet future legislation and taxation, but also to protect their reputation and brand values. All at a challenging economic time when material, energy and other costs have been rising rapidly.
Plastic PVC pipes
Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive (PPWD)
We are starting to witness the impacts of the packaging waste directive, which aims to make the polluter pay through EPR – Extended Producer Responsibility and ensure all packaging is reusable or recyclable by 2030. There are many details within this directive (some of which are still being worked-out and should be announced in April 2023), which will impact different materials and sectors.
Here’s a summary (source: Interplas Insights with some minor amends)
1. New proposals target: Reusability, recyclability, size and uptake of recycled materials.
2. Proposals will apply directly to companies.
3. The revision of the PPWD involved three problems: Low levels of packaging recyclability, growing levels of waste and low levels of uptake in the use of recycled plastics.
4. It was decided that the policy would be made a regulation rather than a directive to combat legal issues.
5. All packaging will need to be recyclable, according to the proposal.
6. According to the plans, recyclable packaging includes: materials that are designed to be recycled, be collected separately, be able to be recycled at a large scale and be able to be recycled in a manner that materials extracted from it are good enough to contribute to the circular economy.
7. The commission will establish a recycling performance system.
8. Packaging should be designed so that it can maximise reuse – packaging of beverages will have a reuse target of 10%, some of the strictest rules target takeaway food with a reusability rate of 40%.
9. There is an exception on the recyclability of wine products.
10. The size of packaging will be scaled down to a minimum against its weight and size ‘the empty space ratio should not exceed 40%.’
11. Plastic packaging will need to contain a share of recycled plastic, the amount changes dependent on sector, but 30% is the likely target.
12. The method for calculating the share of used plastics in items will be decided by the end of 2026.
13. By 2040, packaging used for E-commerce will make up 50% of the market.
14. Single use plastics will be banned in some sectors, unless there are special circumstances, these include: packaging for fruit and vegetables that weigh under 1.5kg, packaging for food and drinks to be consumed at hospitality venues, hotel miniature cosmetics and condiment packaging for hospitality.
15. There will be a 100% reusability target for the transport of goods within a single member state or between two sites of the same company, or linked businesses.
16. The system will grade products A-E. E will mean a product is not recyclable and be banned from the market.
17. Proposals will be supported by secondary legislation.
According to RICS, in the UK, a third of construction plastics are recycled, a third go to landfill, and the final third are incinerated. Six different plastic types account for around 90% of all plastic waste, with PVC being the most common, comprising about half of all waste plastics, followed by polyethylene and polypropylene.
Construction has had little impetus to directly tackle plastic waste because the material is lightweight compared to other waste streams and therefore subject to lower landfill tax. Environmental certification schemes, such as BREEAM and LEED, do not directly tackle plastic, although they do feed into certain material and waste credits.
RICS points out that there is a growing industry focus on material reuse and recycling, carbon consumption and the circular economy and this has helped shift the debate and accelerate efforts to eliminate plastic waste whilst at the same time reduce energy consumption through better design and the application of new technologies. However, there is much still to do despite some great examples being set by some construction companies.
Plastic vs. plant-based materials – which has the least impact?
I am often asked this question.
Both have an impact on the environment, but to different degrees because no synthesised material is made without the use of energy and resources powered by carbon-rich sources such as coal, oil and gas. There is no perfect material currently available and this is an inconvenient truth. However, good news – this could soon change with the development and scale-up of alternative plant-based materials and products.
If we compare fossil-based plastic with materials, made from trees, plants and mycelium, to measure the carbon extracted and CO₂ emitted into the atmosphere, we need to consider the full life-cycle of the materials from cradle to cradle as well as the manufacturing processes, logistical and construction/assembly impacts.
We could discuss other material comparisons such as aluminium vs. steel, which again I’m frequency quizzed about, but that’s a debate for another day. Meanwhile, let’s explore plastic and look at the alternatives that are available.
The history of plastic
In 1862, an Englishman from Birmingham called Alexandra Parkes, invented the first synthetic plastic called Parksine, a hardened form of nitrocellulose. This then led to the first commercial product, billiard balls, developed by an American printer from New York called John Wesley Hyatt, who was awarded $10,000 by Michael Phelan in 1863 due to the cost of ivory and concerns of its shortage.
The first fossil-based plastic, Bakelite, was then invented in 1907 by the Belgian-American chemist Leo Baekeland, also from New York and from here 100’s of different types of plastic were invented, which for the oil and gas industry was a great breakthrough because their waste could now be turned into valuable products, which helped transform society from the Agricultural to the Industrial Age. For example, the first domestic telephone was made from Bakelite.
Plastic is made from extracted crude oil and natural gas, starting its journey millions of years ago from fossilised, liquified organic life forms, which are drilled from the ground, pumped, piped, refined (oil into ethane and gas into propane), cracked into smaller molecules (ethylene and propylene), polymerised into resins (polyethylene and polypropylene), moulded into shapes and extruded like spaghetti, cooled and then chopped into tiny nurdles. These nurdles are then transported to factories all over the world where they are melted and converted into products.
Plant-based alternatives
Cellulose is harvested from plants and managed forests (typically from FSC or PEFC certified pine and eucalyptus trees) and includes sugarcane (bagasse – the waste by-product of the sugar-making process), bamboo, corn (PLA), miscanthus (elephant grass), mycelium, seaweed, hemp and many other plant-based materials. Plants are naturally powered by sunshine, water and other nutrients whilst sequestering CO₂ from the atmosphere, producing oxygen, regulating water-flow, maintaining biodiversity and regenerating and stabilising soil and climate fluctuations at the same time. These materials are often also easy to recycle many times over, unlike plastics, which are difficult to separate and recycle – particularly multi-layer laminates. On average, we recycle about 85% of the cellulose fibre we produce, rigid plastic 10% and lightweight flexible plastic less than 3%. Some of the cellulose products mentioned are made from precious food sources, such as corn, and can’t easily be recycled and repulped with cellulose fibre, but can be collected with food waste and industrially composted.
Thinner filmic plant-based biopolymers are also sometimes home compostable because they can biodegrade at ambient temperatures. There are also biodegradable and oxy-degradable fossil-based plastics, which have already been banned in countries like Italy because of the confusion created as to how to recycle them properly and the contamination they can cause to soil, water and air. The clear visor for this PPE, shown in the picture below, was made from tree-based cellulose and performs just as well as plastic – if not better because of its superior clarity and dead-fold properties. This material is widely used in the food industry to protect and promote confectionery, dry beverages like tea and coffee, spices, powders and fresh produce. With special high barrier coatings and metallisation added, these widely recycled and industrially compostable hybrid materials can also contain liquids and sauces for periods of 6-12 months.
Plastic-Free PPE face shield made from 100% FSC certified wood pulp
The challenge for the construction sector
Fossil-based plastics are highly flexible and functional as a family of materials, which have been developed and honed over the past 100+ years to provide outstanding performance. From window frames, plug sockets, pipes, tubing, cladding, flooring, paint, insulation and decking, different types of plastic and polymer additives have become invaluable. Replacing materials like asbestos and lead have given rise to safer products, which have benefited us all and widely improved health and living conditions.
However, after visiting a construction site, you will see many plastic waste materials not being separated and recycled correctly often because of lack of controls and knowledge of how to process these valuable materials. Shrink-wrapped bulk-packed goods, secured with plastic banding and expanded polystyrene protection being examples that come immediately to mind.
There are some great examples of plant-based materials grown locally and already being used in construction for insulation, signage, wall and floor protection. There are many opportunities to reduce ESG impacts, which can also stabilise cost fluctuations if implemented in a holistic, joined-up and strategic way. Some of these developments can attract ESG grants and funding as well qualifying for R&D tax credits.
PVC – Polyvinyl Chloride
PVC and ePVC is one of the plastic material groups that retailers and brand owners are trying to stop or have already stopped using for packaging because of its carcinogenic properties when burnt. PVC is widely used within building construction for most of the products mentioned above because it is UV and structurally stable provided it is not subjected to more than 100°C.
Are their alternatives? Yes. You can make similar products to PVC and ePVC from cellulose, but often cost more and need further development, testing and importantly certification for performance and safety requirements.
I was with an Austrian plastic manufacturer recently who produce packaging for liquid dispensers, salt grinders and pharmaceutical receptacles. Their slogan is ‘rethinking plastic’ so I asked them “could all these products be made from plant-based cellulose polymers and perform as well”. The answer was “yes”, but the nurdles cost more and in some cases tooling would need to be redesigned. So it is possible for some products, where practical. Much of the alternative bio plastics available are made from bagasse (sugarcane waste) and therefore probably imported from Asia or South America so the carbon footprint, social and other ESG impacts of these materials do need to be taken into account.
I recently updated my decking from timber to compressed, anti-mold, slip resistant, bamboo with a 25 year guarantee. Due to the damp area in my garden, the timber decking was not only slippery when wet, but also started to rot within about five years. I don’t know what the additive is being used to repel moisture, but I am hoping it’s not a PFOA (Perfluorooctanoic Acid) – the same material DuPont/Teflon used to add to their cookware before they were sued $700 million in 2017. This depressing story was eloquently shared in 2020 in the movie Dark Waters. PFOA’s are still being widely used today and can be found in many imported packaging products.
Decking made from bamboo
I hope that this article helps provide you with some clarity around planned changes coming, which will be inevitable when the PPWD starts to take affect. Already, we have witnessed bans for plastic straws, stirrers and ear buds and in October 2023, we will see further bans for disposable plates, cups, drink-ware, cutlery, trays, wrapping or packing films around sweet boxes, invitation cards, and cigarette packets plus plastic or PVC banners less than 100 micron. Predictably, more will follow.
In France, for example, they are adapting much faster and have already banned plastic for packing fresh produce and take-away food. Nestlé/Nespresso, France has announced the imminent switch from aluminium pods to compostable plant-based alternatives. McDonald’s is ditching its plastic drinks lids, in favour of plant-based. It’s all change and at an increasingly rapid pace.
It is a minefield understanding the viable and scaled-up alternative materials available and what impacts these have on the waste recovery and recycling infrastructure, which is woefully inadequate, disjointed and under invested – particularly in the UK. Most of our plastic waste is still currently exported to poorer countries where it is sorted (often by hand) and in some cases incinerated without necessary controls in place. The UK Government is being lobbied hard to stop this activity and there are signs that this will happen in the near future. As an independent advisor to A Plastic Planet, I keep a close eye on what is unfolding and thus far it has been a slow and painful process. China and India have now stopped plastic waste imports from all countries, but countries like Turkey and Myanmar are still accepting our waste.
The future
We stand at the vanguard of change, a critical point in time armed with new found knowledge of what we now know as plastic pollution. We are also cognisant of the truth about plastics, a value-added, by-product of the oil industry and the negative impact this material can have on the environment, food chain and potentially on human health.
Design, new technologies and the development of renewable, circular materials and combinations will play a vital role in solving the enormous challenges of climate change. For example, 3D printing or additive manufacturing of buildings, components and even food will become a new way of solving assembly, supply-chain and logistical challenges to reduce complexity, energy consumption and other resources. Inspiration through biomimicry will help resolve ventilation, cooling, heating, drainage, water and energy storage, light management challenges etc, which nature has already solved and we we can learn how to apply these techniques and features to future building and infrastructure design.
If you would like help achieving your ESG goals and reducing your dependency on fossil-based plastic, we can probably help you. To book a consultation, please do make contact with Changing Streams.
Author: Ian Bates & background
Independent advisor and consultant to Changing Streams.
Ian has over 30 years’ experience at board level, working primarily in the packaging industry. He has worked for large corporations; Metsäboard UK, David S Smith Packaging Plc, AssiDoman Packaging, CRP Print & Packaging, as well as being involved in start-ups and smaller companies.
In 2005 Ian founded the specialist sustainable packaging innovations/marketing company PortaBrands Ltd, where a number of products received Starpack Innovation Awards, which are still in use today. He sold the company in 2010 to advise companies and brands to maximise their potential. He is co-owner of Fibrepac as well as an independent advisor to A Plastic Planet and Made Thought (part of WPP – the largest creative agency in the World).
As a self-confessed materials and packaging nerd (some might say ‘bore’), I am obsessed with what things are made from, how they’re processed or grown and what impacts they might have on society and the planet from cradle to cradle.
I watched the movie ‘Dark Waters’ in 2020, available via Netflix and this gave me sleepless nights. It’s a story about DuPont’s non-stick product called ‘Teflon’. Halfway through the film, my wife literally got up, marched into the kitchen and cleared out every Teflon product – pans, baking trays etc and put them in a large box for metal recycling. This is not typical behaviour for her as she’s normally very difficult to be persuaded by any extreme viewpoint because she likes to consider all the angles before making a decision about anything!
Does your popcorn contain PFA’s?
The Teflon Story
This is a story about a farmer from Parkersburg, West Virginia who loses 190 cattle because of water contamination of his creek. Turns out the local chemical plant, owned by DuPont (now DowDuPont since 2017) was dumping toxic waste in a landfill site nearby. The storage drums leaked and 1000’s of tonnes of PFOA’s leaked into the environment.
Are PFA’s leaching into your food from cookware?
Following a huge cover up by DuPont, it took an environmental lawyer 15 years to expose them. DuPont paid off every agency to keep this activity buried, but the matter would not go away. DuPont was fined nearly US 700 million in 2017.
Interestingly, the defence lawyer worked for the firm that was already engaged to protect DuPont (and many other chemical companies). However, his Grandma was friends with the farmer.
The legal firm, known as TEFLAW, was hired to protect this criminal activity, which was a byproduct of making Teflon (and many other products) – the non-stick material used originally to coat military tanks and has become used to make all sorts of commonly used products including…
– non-stick surfaces for pots, pans, baking equipment, ovens etc
– furniture (e.g. Scotchgard)
– waterproof clothing
– grease resistant packaging (e.g. popcorn bags, pizza boxes and other food service packaging).
Perfluorooctanoic acid —also known as C8—is a perfluorinated carboxylic acid produced and used worldwide as an industrial surfactant in chemical processes and as a material feedstock, and is a health concern and subject to regulatory action and voluntary industrial phase-outs.
Can PFAS cause harm?
Health effects of the various kinds of PFAS are debated, but a growing body of evidence has linked exposure to some of them to:
• Developmental issues, cancer, liver damage, immune system disruption, resistance to vaccines, thyroid disease, impaired fertility and high cholesterol. PFAS have been dubbed “possibly carcinogenic” to humans by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the International Agency for Cancer Research (IARC).
• A study funded by DuPont as part of a legal settlement with residents living near one of its Teflon facilities found that PFOA was probably linked to six disease outcomes: kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease, ulcerative colitis, high cholesterol and pregnancy-induced hypertension.
• Numerous studies on PFOS and PFOA on both humans and animals have shown a wide range of possible health effects, including decreased fertility among women, decreased sperm count and penis size, lowered birth weight, cancer and – among animals studied – death.
• Exposure to PFAS comes mainly from drinking contaminated water, eating food packaged in certain materials, or using products embedded with PFAS.
• Avoid non-stick cookware, Gore-Tex fabric and clothing made with pre-2000 Scotchguard, and personal care products containing PTFE or flouro ingredients. When in doubt, ask manufacturers if their products contain PFAS since they may not be labeled.
• Ask your local health department if your water is contaminated above EPA-specified levels, and stop using it if so.
• Watch out for local fish advisories and don’t eat contaminated catches.
Imported packaging – what are the risks?
We know PFA’s are still being used widely in Asia and other parts of the World to create moisture and grease resistance. For example, often they’re used in paper, carton, bagasse and bamboo fibre products. I asked a leading Chinese manufacturer of bagasse packaging recently if their products contained PFA’s. The reply was of no surprise to me. He’d never heard of PFA’s! We also know many of these products are being imported by supposedly reputable packaging suppliers. However, the fact remains that they are not being diligent enough to check that there is no contamination.
If the supplier can’t provide independent certification from a internationally acclaimed testing facility with effective traceability, assume the worst.
When my business partner, Chris McNeill, first brought this up on one of our Monday early morning ‘walk & talks’, I questioned his sanity! “Seriously” I said “packaging made from grass, is that not just a hippie clay-pipe dream”? How he did protest. I listened…
A miscanthus X giganteus rhizome
It turns out that we have been growing ‘elephant grass’ called ‘Miscanthus X Giganteus’ in the UK for over ten years and most of it is sent to power stations to be burned for energy. Some of it is used for animal bedding and also making BBQ fire-lighters and briquettes. Our other colleague, Dan Evans, came up with the idea to make packaging during a video call with the largest growers in the UK, ESG Natural Capital, about 18 months ago. ESG were developing building materials at the time, and he thought packaging seemed a natural evolution.
Elephant grass can grow to over 12 feet tall!
Miscanthus originates from Asia, but can grow pretty much anywhere in the world provided the climate is not too cold. However, new strains of the plant are in development to make it more hardy and versatile, which would potentially grow anywhere.
Bailed miscanthus stored ready for chipping and then pulping
Almost the fastest growing plant in the world
Miscanthus is the second fastest growing plant on the planet after bamboo, but it has many other advantages. Firstly, it’s non-invasive so the crop can be easily managed and harvested. It’s a perennial crop where roots (rhizomes) remain in the ground all year round and can remain in the soil for over thirty years. It also does not require pesticides or fertiliser – just the occasional potash feed. Being so hardy, it will grow in poor quality soil and regenerate over time, which if you’re a farmer this is great news. Because it grows so quickly, it also absorbs lots of CO2 – over three times more than trees.
Miscanthus – some of its many virtues
There are several valuable by-products from the plant too, which can be used in food and pharmaceutical production as well as providing other downstream products like bio char once passed through the pyrolysis process.
Following a multi-million pound investment, in 2023, we plan to launch Fibrepac in the UK, in partnership with ESG Natural Capital. Initially, there will be one pulping line and multiple thermoforming lines installed in a new food-hygiene safe manufacturing facility, powered by bioenergy produced on-site from agriwaste. This means that this product will be carbon-neutral – possibly even carbon negative. We will initially have about 20,000 tonnes to make food-safe moulded fibre packaging, but more will become available as ESG Natural Capital widens its partnership programme.
Examples of pulp moulded packaging for food
Fibepac looks, feels and performs just like bagasse and will therefore provide a viable and sustainable alternative to imported products, plastic and woodpulp.
First pre-production thermoformed samples
I’m often asked if we can make paper and board from miscanthus. Yes, it’s already been done, but to scale-up and make this commercially viable will need significant investment. I’ve no doubt this will happen in due course, once we have enough scale and interest.
Let’s be clear from the outset, all packaging has an impact on the environment to varying degrees and it’s our job to help clients find the best solutions to mitigate carbon, waste, cost, social and negative impacts whilst finding ways of making packaging work harder.
We measure and consider numerous factors before making recommendations much like a doctor reaches a diagnosis. So the more we can understand your products, processes and routes to market, the better our diagnosis will be. A great design is often limited by the brief and application of knowledge and resources. At Lesspack, it starts with questions to understand the challenge and how we might be able to help.
So what are we? Consultants, agents, manufacturers or what? We are often asked this question and we typically reply that we’re ‘hybrid manufacturers’. We provide consultative services for some clients and we also act as agents – sourcing and supplying packaging. We also invent and develop new materials, coatings and products then license the manufacturing and distribution to third parties. We are creative pragmatists and we say it how we see it and try to be as informative and unbiased as possible. We don’t pretend to know everything, but we do have a great network of contacts and trusted partners who provide the collaborative support and resources to make things happen efficiently.
We don’t sell products; we guide companies to make better choices
For example, Pots & Co use to only source flexo printed corrugated transit/display packaging for their luxury desserts. They were experiencing inconsistencies from one delivery to another so we suggested switching to litholaminated corrugated, powered by food waste bioenergy. This had two positive impacts; it reduced their carbon footprint and eliminated the print defects. This was also achieved with zero increase in cost, partly because the set-up costs of litho compared to flexo are nearly half.
Litho vs. flexo printThe litholaminated packaging manufacturing process
Possibly the most efficient drink carrier in the world
In 2005, I was asked by a client to develop a 4-pint carrier to improve speed-of-service at bars. They were using moulded pulp fibre trays, which are bulky and potentially dangerous if frisbee’d into the crowd! I invented PortaDrink – a brandable carrier, which took-up about 1/4 of the space/handling/distribution and could be sponsored by advertising. This was then used by Costa, Coca Cola, Carlsberg and many other iconic brands. By 2010 we were delivering about 10 million carriers a year. I then sold the company.
PortaDrink has just had a makeover, reducing its footprint and cost by about 1/3 and is being exclusively marketed and distributed by Just Peel. The carrier is slightly smaller and can be printed and die-cut 6-up instead of 4-up on a sheet of board. At a time when board is so expensive, this makes a huge difference and once again this carrier is a compelling alternative to other cup carriers.
Are we running out of trees to make paper and cardboard?
No. Sustainably harvested wood-pulp ensures that 5-6 trees are planted for every one cut so there is no shortage. However, the increasing demand for plastic-free and e-commerce transit packaging is placing stress on the supply chain and in turn this is driving costs higher. We have witnessed increases on some grades of paper and board over 40% in the past 18 months and with rising energy costs and market instability, this will only get worse.
So what are the alternatives? We already make packaging from other cellulose fibres from plants such as bamboo and bagasse, but they’re not grown at scale in the UK or Europe to make these materials sustainable. However, we are working on an exciting and ambitious plan to change this…
In 2023 we will launch Fibrepac in partnership with ESG Natural Capital – the largest growers and processors of miscanthus in Europe. Initially, this will be UK-grown miscanthus, thermoformed in a new food-hygiene manufacturing facility, located in Lincolnshire, powered by bioenergy produced from agriwaste. This means that this product will be carbon-neutral. We will initially have about 20,000 tonnes of miscanthus to make packaging, which is currently being delivered into power stations as biomass to generate energy.
Miscanthus is an important non-food perennial crop, which can be grown on marginal land without the need of pesticides or fertiliser. The roots (rhizomes) are non-invasive and remain in the soil for up to 30 years making this a viable crop for any farmer or land owner looking for a stable, viable crop with minimal maintenance providing other biodiversity benefits. It’s the second fastest growing plant on the planet and absorbs over three times more carbon than trees.
Fibepac looks, feels and performs like bagasse (waste from sugarcane) and will therefore provide a viable and sustainable alternative to imported products, plastic and woodpulp.
If you would like our help or more information, just send us a message and we will aim to come back to you within 24 hours.
Additive manufacturing, more commonly known as 3D printing, was invented in 1981 by Hideo Kodama from Japan. Described as the ‘4th industrial revolution’, the current global market value is £9.5 Billion and predicted to grow by over 23% to £26 Billion by 2026. Some think that this is a conservative estimate.
You might ask, so what?
Well, it’s highly disruptive for starters and will change how things are manufactured, distributed and consumed. This could have far reaching consequences on the production and movement of goods and the application of products and services. Make no mistake, this revolution is going to impact us all in ways that might surprise some of us. This documentary film helps provide an insight to the fast moving world of 3DP.
Printing hardware and software is developing quickly, supported by artificial intelligence and robotic assembly to help optimise product design, which resembles biomimicry – design inspired by nature. Current printing hardware is mostly today a desktop process with relatively small footprints, but just imagine, future printers might be like drones or robotic insects (called relative robots – think spiders) that can build complex structures.
Metal – Gold, silver, steel, copper, titanium & tungsten
Wood composite
Carbon Fibre, Graphite & Graphene
Sand, Ceramics & Cement
Food & Bio matter
From prototyping to mass, personalised production
The 3DP process was originally developed to make prototyping more efficient. Today it is being used as an alternative to mass production. The term ‘print farms’ powered by sustainable energy is something, which will become common place as we redefine how we make, consume, share, recycle and upcycle products. Moving components from one country, factory or farm to another, whilst consuming vast amounts of energy and other resources could become obsolete as 3DP becomes faster, more viable and flexible as digital and physical combine in the most efficient ways possible.
Open-source product design is contributing to the growth of both home and industrial manufacture though paid and free 3D models available for download via Thingiverse and other virtual networks.
NASA is developing new 3DP processes, which can replicate themselves powered by solar, be entirely regenerative, waste-free and make it possible to not only reach other planets, but also make it possible to return to Earth.
I bought a desktop 3D printer a few of months ago to understand what’s possible and I must say, I have been surprised out how easy it was to set-up and operate. From opening the box, I was printing within thirty minutes. About the size of a desktop A4 paper printer, it sits on my worktop and quietly prints all sorts of things day and night without drama. It’s actually more reliable than my paper printer and far more interesting to watch. In fact, it’s pretty hypnotic!
It is a brave new world, which like the invention of the telephone, will be wonderful for many of us, but undoubtedly will change our lives beyond our wildest imagination. For me, the most positive aspects of this technology are the creative possibilities, reduction of waste and impact on our planet, which like many good inventions will help us evolve as humans and better integrate symbiotically with all life forms.
Shell began pumping oil in the Niger Delta in 1958 and today oil and gas represent 65% of their income. In 1993 there was a massive oil spill, one of the biggest in living history, in Ogoniland, which destroyed many lives, much of the habitat and the clean-up continues today. It’s one of the most polluted places on Earth. After much local campaigning over several years, eventually the oil pipeline was shut down and Shell was forced to pay $900 million in compensation. Shell no longer owns this oil field, but guess what the Government is now exploring? The restart of drilling Ogoniland. Madness and stupidity on an epic scale.
So what’s this got to do with consumerism?
You’ve heard the saying ‘money makes the world go round’? Well, I’m not sure the natural world would, if it could speak, agree with that. To fuel people’s appetite to consume more products and services, this depends entirely upon on us all wanting more stuff.
This is where brands and the advertising industry is complicit. To create a need for something, connect with our emotions and convince us to part with our cash. It’s like feeding an addiction and creating a social environment, which eats away at our irresistible desire to reward ourselves or gift others and show how much we appreciate or love them.
We are out-consuming what the planet can provide. With a population of over 8 billion people, it’s no wonder we’re struggling. We are literally raping the planet of its resources through unrestricted and unsustainable extraction of irreplaceable materials.
At the same time, we have a growing number of oligarchs and billionaires who are not just motivated to consume eye-watering amounts of products and services (whilst spewing out huge amounts of CO₂), but are more interested how to increase their global wealth ranking than do anything actually worthwhile with their wealth. The top 10 world’s most wealthy people and companies could end poverty, fund the climate crisis and bring carbon emissions back under control and provide a decent education for every child on the planet. So why don’t they? Surely this is what taxation should be taking care of so that this wealth can be appropriately redistributed. Governments around the world are not leading, they are puppets to the rich and powerful.
Global unity and collaboration
Since the beginning of the first industrial revolution (1750-1850), which started in Britain, we have been extracting fossil fuels and other precious non-renewable materials. The transfer of these mechanised processes shifted around the globe reflecting colonialism, military and political power, manufacturing, consumerism and CO₂ emissions.
In Britain, we have almost stopped coal mining, but we have transferred much of our manufacturing and moral responsibility overseas and in doing so, we have conveniently shifted our carbon footprint and driven the voracious demand for mostly dirty power and long supply chains.
So to avoid climate disaster, we need to consume less (in the developed world 4-5 times less than average current consumption), stop fossil fuel extraction and move toward a new, fairer system of leadership and governance, which is about community, sharing resources, environmental regeneration and socially responsible decision-making. This is the only way I can see a brighter future and one which will require a paradigm shift in the behaviour of everyone – including me.
The planet is our only life-support system and until we understand, respect and collaborate accordingly, our survival is in jeopardy. Just listen to Sir David Attenbough’s speech at COP26. The emotion is palpable and message crystal clear.
The other man I find interesting to listen to is the author and environmentalist, George Monbiot because he understands these complex issues and has the ability to articulate them clearly. He is an independent and reasoned individual for us all to learn from. I also like the fact he openly communicates his income and interests, which is refreshing. I particularly enjoyed watching and listening to this interview at Dagenham Park School with Alice Eady, co founder of Earthrise Studio.
In 2006, Barking and Dagenham was one of the most deprived boroughs in London. Led by Tesse Britton, she had the idea to introduce a new participatory community project. The results have been encouraging and the community is once again starting to thrive, which just shows what’s possible when people come together to share ideas and resources.
We all need community because it is the connectedness of people that makes us feel part of something meaningful, whilst making us happier and healthier; including Mother Earth.
We have collectively messed-up the balance of life as originally introduced by James Lovelock and his Gaia Principal in the late 1970’s. The only way we can fix this is by working together in a unified, collaborative manner before it’s too late.
Both have an impact on the environment, but to different degrees because no natural and synthesised material is made without the use of energy and resources powered by carbon-rich resources such as coal, oil and gas. There is no perfect material currently and this is an inconvenience truth. However, good news – this is all about to change.
If we compare fossil-based plastic with materials, made from trees and plants, to measure the carbon extracted and CO₂ emitted into the atmosphere, we need to consider the full life-cycle of the materials from cradle to cradle as well the manufacturing processes and logistical impacts.
In 1862, an Englishman from Birmingham called Alexandra Parkes, invented the first synthetic plastic called Parksine, a hardened form of nitrocellulose. This then led to the first commercial product, billiard balls, developed by an American printer from New York called John Wesley Hyatt, who was awarded $10,000 by Michael Phelan in 1863 due to the cost of ivory and concerns of its shortage.
The first fossil-based plastic, Bakelite, was then invented in 1907 by the Belgian-American chemist Leo Baekeland, also from New York and from here 100’s of different types of plastic were invented, which for the oil and gas industry was a great breakthrough because they’re waste could now be turned into valuable products, which helped transform society from the Agricultural to the Industrial Age.
Today we produce over 9.2 billion tonnes of plastic every year, doubling each decade, of which about 40% is used to make packaging. Plastic is made from extracted crude oil and natural gas, starting its journey millions of years ago from fossilised, liquified organic life forms, which are drilled from the ground, pumped, piped, refined (oil into ethane and gas into propane), cracked into smaller molecules (ethylene and propylene), polymerised into resins (polyethylene and polypropylene), moulded into shapes and extruded like spaghetti, cooled and then chopped into tiny nurdles. These nurdles are then transported to factories all over the world where they are melted and converted into packaging and consumer products.
Plant-based alternatives(click for video link – interview on CNBC with Troy Swope, Founder of Footprint)
Cellulose is harvested from plants and managed forests (typically from FSC or PEFC certified pine and eucalyptus trees) and includes sugarcane (bagasse – the waste byproduct of the sugar-making process), bamboo, corn (PLA), miscanthus (elephant grass), mushrooms and seaweed. Plants are naturally powered by sunshine and water whilst sequestering CO₂ from the atmosphere, producing oxygen, regulating water-flow, maintaining biodiversity and regenerating and stabilising soil and climate fluctuations at the same time. These materials are often also easy to recycle many times over, unlike plastics, which are difficult to separate and recycle – particularly multi-layer laminates. On average, we recycle about 85% of the cellulose fibre we produce, rigid plastic 9% and flexible plastic only 3%. Some of the cellulose products mentioned are made from precious food sources, such as corn, and can’t easily be recycled and repulped with cellulose fibre, but can be collected with food waste and industrially composted.
Thinner filmic plant-based biopolymers are also sometimes home compostable because they can biodegrade at ambient temperatures. There are also biodegradable and oxy-degradable fossil-based plastics, which have already been banned in countries like Italy because of the confusion created as to how to recycle them properly and the contamination they cause to soil, water and air.
Fossil-based plastic vs. cellulose packaging – which is best for your product?
This is difficult to answer clearly because it depends on many variables, which need to be considered holistically and on a case by case basis. Plastic is versatile, inexpensive and often the current preferred option to protect and present products, but it is becoming increasingly unpopular because it is causing negative environmental and health impacts. Plastic is currently highly subsidised and not yet subject to punitive taxation, which reflect the true costs of recovery and recycling. In some countries, single-use plastic is becoming banned or taxed through extended producer responsibility (EPR) legislation.
There are life-cycle analysis (LCA) reports available, but with any report, which is material and product specific, the empirical data needs to be independent and expertly reviewed, which is costly and complex. Here’s an example of a LCA report , commissioned by Swedish fibre-based material manufacturer, BillerudKorsnäs, comparing plastic shopping bags with paper cement sacks.
Barriers to change are usually commercial or technical. Plastic tends to be lower cost and switching to new materials, particularly on automated packing lines, can require changes and investment. Pack development is also costly and can be a complex process requiring commitment and alignment of everyone involved within the supply chain. But be in no doubt, change is coming. When most leading retailers and brands are committed to reducing single-use plastic waste, it’s only a matter of time before we reach a tipping point.
Over the next 25 years, the petrochemical industry is planning a 400% increase in production. To find out more, I recommend you read Naomi Klein’s well researched book, ‘This Changes Everything’, which is also available to watch as a short documentary film.
We can fix this, but only through true collaboration and changes in policy on a global scale. When we found out the problems with CFC’s a Worldwide ban was introduced in 1987. So change is possible. Let’s hope COP26 is the catalyst for change, spearheading the end of coal and the beginning of the end of other carbon-rich, ancient fossil fuels to make packaging and other products.
I first became aware of the climate crisis in 2006, after watching An Inconvenient Truth by Al Gore. Up until this point, I was blissfully unaware of the issues relating to global warming and the complicity of the fossil fuels industry. 15 years later, we continue to ignore the warnings of scientists and other experts. Read the latest IPCC report to find out more.
In simple terms, in case you did not already know, the more carbon extracted and burned, the greater concentration of CO₂ and methane in the atmosphere, which leads to global warming. If we increase the average temperature by more than 1.5°C the melting of permafrost and ice caps will start a chain-reaction, which could be irreversible. We are already seeing evidence of this with flooding, erratic weather, sea temperature rises, acidification and the extinction of 1000’s of species.
So it’s simple right? We just stop the extraction of coal, oil, bitumen (fracking) and gas and the planet will recover? Yes, that would do it, but there is one tiny problem with that theory. The petrochemical industry is one of the most wealthy and powerful groups of people on the planet and they are not motivated to change. They control the power brokers at the highest level of business and governments and to break-up this party will require people power and an unprecedented shift in behaviour.
Meanwhile, over the next 25 years, the petrochemical industry is planning a 400% increase in production. To find out more, I recommend you read Naomi Klein’s well researched book, ‘This Changes Everything’, which is also available to watch as a short documentary film.
We have to remain positive and hopeful that our leaders will step-up and make the right decisions, change policies, which favour clean energy technologies and support a transition away from dirty energy. We can do it if we really want to, provided we face facts and take immediate action.
When we found out the problems with CFC’s, a Worldwide ban was introduced in 1987. So change on a global scale is possible. Let’s hope COP26 is the catalyst for much needed change, spearheading the end of coal and the beginning of the end of extracting other carbon-rich, ancient fossil fuels.
Bates Blog - Light Bulb Changer 