Tuesday, October 21st, 2014

Kids “Think Outside the Bag” for Recycling Program Expansion

New Program Designed to Help Flexible Film Recycling Go Mainstream

Consumers generally know that plastic bottles and packaging can be put in a blue bin, collected and recycled. For plastic bags and films, however, there’s an added step, as curbside pickup for these materials is not widespread.  Plastic film recycling requires consumers who live in jurisdictions without single-stream recycling to collect and bring these materials back to the grocery store where they most likely acquired them in the first place.

Returning these materials to where they came from isn’t an enormous burden, but it does contribute to low collection rates (along with the fact that plastic bags are also very likely to be reused, over and over again). Until technology advances in such a way that allows recyclers to sort this material with other more rigid plastic materials (and you can trust that the recycling industry is doing everything in its power to make that a reality) and pick it up curbside, this necessary step, wherein the consumer is both sorter and shipper, will be a part of the plastic film and bag recycling process. Presently, it’s estimated that only 12 percent of this material is recycled. That’s why SPI is working with JASON Learning and looking to kids for a fresh perspective.JASONLogo

The “Think Outside the Bag!” contest is the latest in SPI’s efforts to help promote and increase recycling, and was announced Monday by SPI, its Flexible Film and Bag Division (FFBD) and JASON Learning, a nonprofit organization managed by Sea Research Foundation, Inc. in partnership with the National Geographic Society. It asks students to come up with a creative campaign to increase recycling of flexible plastic film like dry cleaner bags, product wrapping and, of course, plastic grocery bags. “We each encounter flexible film plastic products in our everyday lives,” said SPI Vice President of Industry Affairs and FFBD Liaison Patty Long. “But this material too often ends up in the trash rather than on a truck back to a processor that can turn it back into something useful.”

spi_logo_2000x1007SPI and the entire plastics industry hopes that in the future plastic bag recycling is as routine a part of American life as curbside recycling, and that more of this material ends up at recycling plants than ends up in landfills, waterways or other venues. Losing plastic films and bags isn’t merely environmentally harmful, it’s also economically wasteful, and the entire industry doesn’t want any of it slipping through the cracks. “SPI, the FFBD and JASON are committed to increasing plastic film recycling and we want students to help us make sure none of these materials end up polluting our hometowns, our waterways and our beaches,” Long added.

The contest is another in a long line of the plastics industry’s efforts to increase recycling and use the industry’s expertise to solve environmental quandaries, fitting right in with Operation Clean Sweep, the Plastics Recycling Marketplace and the Zero Waste Zone at NPE2015. In terms of combining a focus on solutions with industry engagement, SPI and JASON Learning make logical partners for the contest. “At JASON we pride ourselves on connecting students with the real professionals working in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) to explore new frontiers and find new solutions to the problems threatening our environment,” said JASON Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer Dr. Eleanor Smalley. “The ‘Think Outside the Bag!’ contest will teach students about the plastic film recycling process from some of the industry’s biggest players, and give them the opportunity to think critically about the challenges that keep these materials from getting recycled and how they can overcome them in their communities.”

More information and details for participating student groups are available here. SPI looks forward to seeing what students come up with, and to working with JASON and the next generation of consumers to close the loop on all plastics.

Wednesday, October 15th, 2014

A World of Opportunity: Exporting Benefits Your Bottom Line

By Michael Taylor, SPI Senior Director, International Affairs and Trade

Michael Taylor, SPI Senior Director, International Affairs and Trade

Michael Taylor, SPI Senior Director, International Affairs and Trade

More than 70 percent of the world’s purchasing power and more than 95 percent of the world’s population is located outside of the United States. Your competitors are increasing their global market share, and you can too. According to a study published by the Institute for International Economics, U.S. companies that export not only grow faster, but are nearly 8.5 percent less likely to go out of business than non-exporting companies.

Less than 1 percent of America’s 30 million companies export—a percentage that is significantly lower than all other developed countries. And of U.S. companies that do export, 58 percent export to only one country. Many businesses could benefit from learning more about these international opportunities and resources available to help.

When evaluating a possible export market opportunity, there are a number of factors you should keep in mind. Here is a  list for consideration:

  • Economic growth (GDP growth rate)
  • Per capita income
  • Income distribution
  • Size of consumer demand
  • Inflation rate
  • Currency fluctuation
  • Economic and political stability
  • Ease of doing business (World Bank’s ranking)
  • Tariff and taxes
  • Non-tariff barriers
  • Demographics
  • Cross border transfer of goods
  • Banking system
  • Culture and business practices
  • Infrastructure, ease of moving products, communication, roads, ports and airports

In reference to evaluating ease of doing business listed above, the World Bank has developed an Ease of Doing Business Index. Economies are ranked on their ease of doing business, from 1 – 189. A high ranking on the ease of doing business index means the regulatory environment is more conducive to the starting and operation of a local firm. This index averages the country’s percentile rankings on 10 topics, made up of a variety of indicators, giving equal weight to each topic. Countries are given an overall “Ease of Doing Business” rank (out of 189 economies) and rankings by each topic.

Although the index is not plastics-industry specific or exclusively regulatory in its focus, the index provides an excellent benchmarking tool to assess the general business climate/environment over time and in comparison to other export markets. Here is an example of what the World Bank produces.

Ease of Doing Business

Of course, special attention should also be given to existing free trade agreements (FTAs). The U.S. has free trade agreements in force with 20 countries. U.S. exports to FTA partners are up 57 percent since 2009. Forty-six percent of U.S. goods exports go to its trade agreement partners. U.S. export growth to FTA partners (57 percent) has grown more rapidly than exports to the rest of the world (44 percent). The U.S. has a $15.2 billion trade surplus in non-oil products with its FTA partners, nearly 70 percent higher than the 2009 value. In 2013, plastic resin and products manufacturing (Harmonized Schedule Chapter 39) had a $17.6 billion surplus with its FTA partners.

So the reasons for exporting are many, and the benefits go beyond just increased sales. If you are interested in exploring what market opportunities exist specifically for you, then contact SPI’s Washington office at 202-974-5200.

This piece is an excerpt of an article that appeared in the Fall 2014 edition of The SPI Magazine. Click here to read the full version online, or download the SPI Magazine and SPE Magazine mobile app, available free in the App Store and in Google Play

Monday, October 6th, 2014

SPI Supports APBA Referendum on California SB 270

By William R. Carteaux, President and CEO, SPI: The Plastics Industry Trade Association

William R. Carteaux, President and CEO, SPI

William R. Carteaux, President and CEO, SPI

As I mentioned last week in my comments at the 2014 Global Plastics Summit, California recently enacted SB 270, the nation’s only statewide plastic bag ban. SPI: The Plastics Industry Trade Association always has and always will advocate for science and fact-based legislation, but SB 270 does not fit this description. In a press release issued last Tuesday, the American Progressive Bag Alliance (APBA) announced it would take the steps necessary to gather signatures and qualify a referendum to repeal it:

“The approval of SB 270 by the California legislature and Governor Jerry Brown could serve as a case study for what happens when greedy special interests and bad government collide in the policymaking process. 

“Senator Padilla’s bill was never legislation about the environment. It was a back room deal between the grocers and union bosses to scam California consumers out of billions of dollars without providing any public benefit—all under the guise of environmentalism. If this law were allowed to go into effect it would jeopardize thousands of California manufacturing jobs, hurt the environment and fleece consumers for billions so grocery store shareholders and their union partners can line their pockets.”

SPI supports the APBA in opposing SB 270 and seeking a referendum. We do not believe that in passing SB 270 California lawmakers acted in the public interest, and we trust that the public will repeal it at the ballot box.

Plastic bags are the smartest, most environmentally-friendly choice at the checkout counter. Ninety percent (90%) of Americans reuse their plastic bags as trashcan liners, pet waste bags, lunch bags, etc., despite the fact that SB 270’s proponents have attempted to brand plastic bags as “single-use.” This is a myth that’s disproven every day in homes across America. When plastic bags outlive their usefulness, they can be recycled: they are 100% recyclable and can be converted into building materials like decking, fencing and playground equipment. Moreover, they consume less than 4% of the water, generate less than 80% of the waste and require less than 70% of the energy necessary to manufacture their paper counterparts. In addition, consumers will be forced to pay at least 10 cents for every paper bag they purchase.

As for the bags that are oil-derived and made in China, which SB 270’s proponents promote, most are made from nonwoven polypropylene, which isn’t recyclable. In addition, cotton grocery bags must be used 131 times before their contribution to global climate change becomes lower than that of a plastic bag used just once. These bags also have been found to contain toxic lead and harbor harmful bacteria.

Further, plastic bags make up less than two percent (2%) of California’s municipal waste stream and just fourth-tenths of a percent (0.4%) of the overall American waste stream. Thus the bill’s environmental impact will be negligible if not nonexistent. Proponents have been forced to acknowledge this, choosing instead to label SB 270 “a good start.” For them, plastic bags are just the beginning, and plastic bottles, cutlery and other materials are now in their crosshairs.

apba logo_2012That is the issue at hand. The lack of science or logic in SB 270 sets a disconcerting precedent for what legislators could do under the guise of environmental stewardship. This should concern the plastics industry at large: unscientific bills supported by special interests could encourage bans on other plastic products. This must be the beginning of a discussion that plastics recyclers, suppliers, manufacturers and processors have about the future of the industry. The APBA has started this conversation, and we hope the entire plastics supply chain chooses to be a part of it.

Wednesday, October 1st, 2014

At GPS, a Positive Outlook for Plastics but Risks Remain

As a manufacturing sector, plastics has outpaced its counterparts in terms of economic growth since the 1980s. The industry looks poised to continue this trend too, as a panel of economic and plastics experts testified this morning at the Global Plastics Summit (GPS) in Chicago, hosted jointly by IHS and SPI: the Plastics Industry Trade Association.

IMG_0190However, risks remain for the plastics industry, most notably the lower levels of productivity that are restraining the pace of economic growth. “That productivity issue represents some real risks,” said David Witte, senior vice president of IHS Chemical, tying the issue to a lack of education on the part of the public regarding the number and type of careers available in the plastics and manufacturing industries. “There’s some really, really good jobs out there that are more trade related and I think we have to start focusing on that shortfall.”

SPI CEO and President Bill Carteaux agreed, noting that the long period of exceptional growth in the plastics industry that has persisted since the 1980s because there were always enough workers to fill openings and keep production high. “That growth caught up with us,” he said. “The next generation of the workforce, that issue is not going to be solved in DC, it’s going to be solved on the local level, going back in to the high schools and educating the teachers and guidance counselors to steer these young people into these great careers.”

Carteaux’s point that local activism, education and regulatory support will be key to maintaining the plastics industry’s success was echoed by the rest of the panel. On a federal level, however, the picture is a bit grimmer, but the priority for plastics is educating officials and the public. “We as an industry broadly have the task to educate people on what we do and we’ve done a lousy job,” said Kurt Barrow, vice president of oil markets and downstream at IHS Energy. “What we’re up against is the NIMBY (not in my back yard) mentality and the environment al lobby that doesn’t understand unless it’s a solar cell on top of a car or bicycle. They’re the minority but they’re very vocal in the political realm, and our job is really to kind of get the government engaged.”

“The best thing the government can do is to stay the heck out of the way,” said panelist Nariman Behravesh, IHS chief economist, summarily. “Let me just leave it at that in the interest of time.”

Barrow warned that the sudden institution of strict regulations that affect plastics could conceivably restrict access, increase costs and, in a word, “throw growth off the rails.” SPI has called for regulatory reform as well, to create an environment in which plastics can not only maintain its current state and operate without costly, ill-advised rules that aren’t based on facts, but also grow even faster than its current rate.IMG_0173

Still, the labor shortage for manufacturers continues to be a growth-limiting restriction. “The regulation side is huge,” Carteaux said when asked for what the greatest threats to plastics were. “But I think the other big issue when you look at the investments in plastics is ‘are we going to have enough people to build it? Are we going to see the capacity to put those facilities up?’”

SPI in particular continues to work to eliminate these risks to the plastics industry with its aforementioned call for reform and its recently launched PlasticsU, a one-stop online warehouse of educational resources for companies seeking to train new and existing workers. Learn more about the manufacturing employment landscape here.

Wednesday, September 24th, 2014

USGBC Recognizes Plastics Industry Concerns that LEED v4 Promotes Product De-Selection – Conversation is a Good Thing, Results are Better

By Terry Peters, CAE, SPI Senior Director, Technical and Industry Affairs

There are moments in time where science and logic may prevail. The Aug. 27, 2014, press release – U.S. Green Building Council and American Chemistry Council to Work Together to Advance LEED – could be a harbinger of great things for LEED and our industry. The release announces “a new initiative designed to ensure the use of sustainable and environmentally protective products in building by applying the technical and science-based approaches to the LEED green building program. This new initiative acknowledges USGBC’s success in leading the transformation of the building environment and sets up a pathway to take advantage of the materials science expertise of ACC and its members.”   ACC logo

We applaud USGBC (U.S. Green Building Council) and ACC (American Chemistry Council) for crafting this agreement in principal.  As active members of the American High Performance Building Coalition (the collaborative of 41 organizations working with ACC), SPI is justifiably proud of this announcement and pleased that several years of intense work with Congress and federal agencies have encouraged USGBC to come to this place.

SPI has been a longtime member of USGBC and stands by previous statements supporting the higher goals of LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design). Over the years we’ve considered ourselves the loyal, if strident, opposition to the materials credits issue. Through the American High Performance Building Coalition (AHPBC) and the Flexible Vinyl Alliance, we have pressured for change.  At our invitation, Brendan Owens, LEED’s vice president, technical, has presented to our Fluoropolymer and Flexible Vinyl Division meetings about a half dozen times and heard our issues and concerns repeatedly stated.

This is beginning the discussions; nothing is yet agreed that addresses our long standing issues on material credits.  There are entrenched opinions and territories. But we are in a better place for this attempt to work together. Let us suspend our skepticism for a moment and look to the good that may come from this announcement.

LEED is the most used green building standards globally, as well as in the United States where more than 400 cities and communities, 39 states and 14 federal agencies currently require builders to meet LEED standards. That is why the plastics industry and other manufacturing associations are working diligently to get the USGBC to modify some portions of LEED, and also why they applaud some of the improvements in LEED v4.

For example, LEED v4 is pioneering the use of verified life cycle assessment data to determine the environmental impacts of products. As such, there will be a new credit when manufacturers provide Environmental Product Declarations or third-party verified life cycle assessments for their products. There also will be credits for buildings that exceed the established ASHRAE 90.1 standard for energy efficiency by 5 percent and 10 percent.

That is a perfect way of incentivizing builders to reach those levels because it allows you as a designer or builder to choose the material that works best. It doesn’t tell you to use fiberglass or foam, or what not to use. The energy chapter of LEED is an excellent chapter. It is performance-based and material-neutral.

Since it was formed two years ago, the AHPBC has consistently argued that USGBC has developed its LEED standards with a disregard for science, without involving industry and without using a consensus-based approach as is done by organizations such as the American National Standards Institute (ANSI).

LEED has helped make buildings more energy- and resource-efficient. But the latest version disparages and discriminates against vinyl and other materials. As pointed out by my colleagues at The Vinyl Institute, “USGBC’s own Technical and Scientific Advisory Committee examined the environmental impacts of PVC and other materials and concluded that credits to encourage avoidance of any material could lead to use of less-desirable products. Unfortunately, USGBC utterly ignored its own scientific conclusions in LEED v4.”

SPI agrees. This material discrimination should be eliminated. The best materials should be judged by application. We hope this overture of partnership, applying our real world material science to the aspirations of LEED, can work.

Thank you, USGBC.  Now, let’s get to work.