As many of you avid soccer (also known as “football” outside of the U.S.) fans know, the 2010 FIFA World Cup kicks off on June 11, 2010 in South Africa and will end on July 11. This event is an international competition that is held every four years by members of the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), the sport’s global governing body. The current format of the tournament involves 32 teams competing for the title. Overall the World Cup is the most widely-viewed sporting event in the world, with an estimated 715.1 million people watching the 2006 final on television. By way of comparison, “only” an estimated 153.4 million viewers watched all or part of this year’s Super Bowl.

This year many of the world’s top soccer players, including Cristiano Ronaldo of Portugal, will be wearing shirts made of old plastic bottles at the World Cup. Nike said shirts for the nine national teams wearing its gear (which includes Portugal, Holland, the U.S. and one of the favorites Brazil) would be made from polyester recycled from used bottles. Each shirt uses up to eight plastic bottles retrieved from Japanese and Taiwanese landfill sites. Nike’s fabric suppliers were able to take the plastic bottles and melt them down to produce new yarn that was ultimately converted to fabric for jerseys. The shirts will keep players drier and cooler than previous kits while reducing energy consumption in manufacture by 30% compared to normal polyester. Manufacture of the shirts, which will also be sold to fans, used 13 million plastic bottles – enough to fill 29 football pitches.

Nike isn’t the only company to manufacture shirts out of plastic bottles. Coca-Cola’s Drink2Wear shirts are also made out of recycled bottles, and Patagonia started manufacturing fleece out of post-consumer bottles in 1993 with little fanfare. (Previously we have blogged about Wyndham Hotels’ initiative to institute polyester employee uniforms derived from post-consumer products.) By featuring this technology at a major sporting event watched by millions, Nike is letting the world know that the technology is worth our attention. I couldn’t agree more

Recently I was talking with a contact from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA’s) Marine Debris Program (MDP).  The MDP serves as a centralized marine debris capability within NOAA in order to coordinate, strengthen and increase the visibility of marine debris issues and efforts within the agency, its partners and the public.  This program is undertaking a national and international effort focusing on identifying, reducing and preventing debris in the marine environment. (Of course, SPI’s own marine debris initiative, Operation Clean Sweep, includes approximately 200 companies that have pledged to take necessary management steps to ensure that spilled resin pellets do not make their way to local waterways or the ocean.)  

Through the years, SPI has worked with MDP staff on an educational front including last year’s pre-NPE2009 event entitled “Polymers and the Environment: Emerging Technologies and Science” co-sponsored by SPI and the BioEnvironmental Polymer Society (BEPS).  Dr. Holly Bamford, Marine Debris Program Director and Division Chief, spoke at the conference regarding marine debris issues and the plastics industry.

In talking with my contact, I was interested to hear about a recent program the MDP has undertaken to turn derelict fishing nets (one of the larger contributors to marine debris) into energy.  The Nets-to-Energy Program has taken the fishing net situation and used it as an opportunity to turn the waste into something beneficial: usable electricity.

The whole concept of “waste-to-energy” is not new to the plastics industry.  As SPI President Bill Carteaux has blogged about, plastics are derived from petroleum or natural gas giving them a stored energy value higher than any other material commonly found in the waste stream.  According to one source:

“…plastics have a high calorific value, equivalent to or higher than that of coal, so can provide a very useful source of energy after serving their useful life as a plastics product. Plastics left in municipal waste incinerators (energy-from-waste plants) help generate useful power and heat, while using separated fractions such as paper/plastic mixtures as alternative fuels in power stations offer the prospect of replacing coal and reducing the emission of greenhouse gases.”

In Europe more than 380 waste-to-energy plants exist to deliver energy (heat and electricity) to citizens and industry.  According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), there are only about 90 waste-to-energy plants in the U.S.  However these plants generate enough electricity to supply almost 3 million households.  Imagine what more plants could do.  The idea of recovering energy from plastic is one that should continue to be explored.  As the nation seeks to increase its energy security and looks to sources of new and alternative energy, energy recovery through plastics should be part of the mix.

So, did you watch Audi’s “Green Police” commercial (see above) during the Super Bowl? Eventually, it gets around to touting the company’s A3 TDI clean diesel vehicle as a good environmental choice — the “Green Car of the Year” (according to Green Car Journal). It is clever and makes great use of a parody re-recording of “Dream Police” — the 1979 power pop hit by Cheap Trick.  And most of the ad is hilarious — I particularly like the poor guy in his kitchen who gets nabbed in the spotlight of a “green police” sting  as he throws melon rinds and orange peels into his trash can: “Put the rind down! Sir, that’s a compost infraction!” 

But to the plastics industry, some of the commercial’s bits were not at all funny — especially coming from the auto industry, which can thank plastics for many of its innovations.  Audi’s campaign (yes, there will be more ads) features several plastics products in an unfair and unflattering way — specifically regarding plastic grocery bags, bottles and foam cups. On the contrary, these items are lighter than alternatives, saving fuel during transportation and producing less greenhouse emissions. Ironically, recycled plastics products are increasingly being used to make parts in new cars — including new Audi cars.

With this TV ad, Audi essentially bites the plastic hand that feeds it – the plastics industry that make its precious A3 TDI so environmentally sound to begin with! In it’s press release extoling the “Green Car of the Year” recognition, Audi points out the A3 TDI’s fantastic fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions benefits. Unfortunately, it fails to mention that this fuel economy and many of the car’s features could not be achieved without plastics. Check out this video of the A3 TDI that highlights the innovative uses of plastics throughout the car.

On this blog we have pointed out time and time again the enormous benefits that the increasing use of plastics has brought to the auto and aerospace industries – from weight savings to support reduction of fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emissions to substantial design freedom allowing advanced creativity and innovation. Audi’s own marketing touts its use of lighter materials, including plastics, to cut fuel consumption. We have also tried here and there to point out the health and safety merits of plastics packaging, and, in many posts, the importance of plastics recycling and our industry’s efforts to do so. 

Audi’s “Green Police” ad uses over-the-top humor to make a point: We all can make choices every day to help the environment – in the cars we drive, the products we buy and the way we use them.  But the company is also speaking out of both sides of it’s mouth when it comes to plastics. Get the facts – about bags, polystyrene foam cups, bottles and more —  at http://www.greenpoliceconfused.com/

I miss my plastic yogurt lids (like this one or these).

As a woman who is attempting to exercise regularly and eat a semi-decent diet of something other than gummi bears and Twizzlers, I like to put a single serve yogurt into my lunch several times a week. I like yogurt.  It’s not horrible (like carob or wheat germ) yet it’s still nutritious.

I have one particular brand that I gravitate towards.  Over the past few years, yogurt companies have stopped including plastic lids on single serve containers. This used to be the top barrier above the foil seal.  In an effort to reduce packaging, and become more sustainable, the lids were deemed excessive and only the foil seal remains on top.

I believe the foil seal on the particular yogurt I buy is not adequate enough.  Why?  Twice this week, the foil has peeled back on the edges of the container, leaking yogurt goo all over the rest of my lunch. This is annoying. Not to mention the fact that I then question the viability of my yogurt.  Is it safe? Is it still good?  Did it inherit some sort of contaminant? Obviously packaging ranks as a key factor in food safety and this sometimes poses challenges to reduce packaging.

Food is expensive.  In fact, food costs are rising at almost monthly rates.  For all I know, the organic yogurt I like may come from special cows that like tropical locations and long walks on the beach. This makes it even more expensive.  I don’t like having to throw away a yogurt on mere speculation that the foil seal has failed.

Give me back my lid.

Instead of eliminating packaging to the point where damages become greater, why don’t we work more on recycling?  Polypropylene yogurt cups are recyclable, but are not widely accepted by municipal recycling outfits. If we could generate efforts to get more polypropylene recycled, plastic lids would not be such a big deal.

I regularly wonder about the damages that reductions in packaging cause, and how the cost savings of packaging reduction are likely eaten up by the amount of product loss due to shipping, retail store or consumer damage.

I do believe we should all work to “build a better mousetrap” and engineer the best possible packaging for the products we use and buy.  But if the costs outweigh the benefits, shouldn’t we work a little harder to solve the problem?

In my case, this means a better foil seal on my yogurt – one that won’t peel back from the sides prior to opening. Or,  just give me back the plastic lid until something better can be invented.

In the meantime, I guess I could just stop eating yogurt. But then I might have to actually eat flaxseed, seaweed and the like to get vitamins and minerals.  So, I will continue to suffer with inadequate packaging and carry my yogurt in one of those Gladware or Ziploc storage containers (also polypropylene).  While this truly is excessive, I can reuse the storage container and my yogurt doesn’t end up all over the place. Maybe I’m the one who has to do damage control these days.

Last weekend my wife and I flew to California to meet my sister in-law’s fiancé for the first time. Unfortunately my soon-to-be brother in-law and I got off on the wrong foot.  Mike seemed to be the type of guy who saw public policy issues concerning the environment in only black or white terms. Put it this way: If plastic was the only available choice of bag, Mike would rather walk miles with a heavy and cumbersome load of grocery items in his arms. I recognized that Mike and I would not see eye-to-eye on a number of issues. But could we at least find some common ground?          

 Upon learning that I worked on behalf of the plastics industry, Mike questioned how I could live with myself.  Instead of debating, I played nice and brushed off his accusations with humor and other means of deflection. While I managed to diffuse the situation for a time, I realized that this issue would return before I left for home. Sure enough, during dinner one night, Mike informed the family that he recently purchased a hybrid vehicle (a Toyota Prius specifically) and has managed to achieve a  fuel economy of more than 50 miles to the gallon. So he said while I was “killing the environment,” he was doing his best to help “Mother Earth.”  Everyone turned to me for a response. 

For my wife’s sake, I once again attempted to avoid the conflict that was brewing. But it was proving difficult.  So I began discussing the energy saving attributes of plastics. I cited the plastic window kits that insulate houses during the winter. I noted the amount of fuel that is saved by using plastic in a car—noting that every pound of plastic in a car replaces up to three pounds of other materials, which can increase a car’s fuel economy by 6%.  I also mentioned that the material of choice for windmill rotor blades is carbon filament-reinforced plastic (CFRP) and glass fiber-reinforced plastic (GFRP).  I also underscored the need for municipalities to improve recycling efforts, and innovative plastics projects and programs involving waste-to-energy.  I even told him all the ways our trade show, NPE2009, showcased how plastics contribute to a sustainable world.

Maybe it was my convincing argument, or the not so gentle nudge by my sister in-law, but the heated debate soon ended with Mike nodding and saying “I never thought of that.”

When I returned to D.C., I came across another really interesting article that discussed efforts to reduce vehicle weight further via plastic engines. I e-mailed it to Mike with a simple message: “Imagine the possibilities with plastics.” Surprisingly, Mike called me from his honeymoon to apologize for his abrasive behavior, and thanked me for opening his eyes to the ways  plastics contribute to sustainability. 

Although I don’t think Mike will be asking for plastic bags at the grocery store anytime soon, I do believe he is a little less rigid in his atitude toward polymeric materials.