Coca-Cola And Carlsberg Introduce Plant-Based Bottles That Degrade In A Year
65Kviews
Disposal of plastic bottles is a huge contributor to the global climate crisis. In a world that is currently making 300 million tons of plastic from fossil fuels annually, we are desperate to have alternatives, and the Dutch company Avantium might have a solution for us. With the backing of major companies such as Coca-Cola, Carlsberg, and Danone, it is developing a plant-based plastic that could replace the plastic used in the food supply chain.
More info: Avantium
Coca-Cola and Carlsberg have joined forces to back Dutch biochemical company Avantium, which is developing new plant-based plastic
Image credits: piqsels
The Dutch company Avantium seeks to reduce the market’s reliance on fossil fuels by developing fully plant-based plastic. The new plastic-like material it has developed is made from corn, wheat, and beet sugars.
This material made from plant sugars would completely decompose within a year in a composter
Image credits: carlsberg
“This plastic has very attractive sustainability credentials because it uses no fossil fuels and can be recycled—but would also degrade in nature much faster than normal plastics do,” Avantium’s chief executive, Tom Van Aken, said to The Guardian.
The new plant-based bottles will dissolve in a few years if left outside in normal conditions
Image credits: Marco Verch
That could make a major change in the world since plastic pollution is a major issue nowadays and it keeps growing. Plastic bottles and pieces of microplastic can be found on every single beach in the world and are affecting sea life.
This plastic is considered a very attractive alternative, since no fossil fuels are involved in the manufacturing process
Image credits: avantium_
Back in 1950, a global population of 2.5 billion produced approximately 1.5 million tons of plastic. However, by 2016, a population of more than seven billion produced more than 320 million tons of plastic. This figure is expected keep growing and double by 2034. Therefore, any effort to reduce plastic production is vital.
It is hoped that beverages in these bottles will hit the shelves by 2023
Myriam Shingleton, Carlsberg’s vice president of group development, stated that the company aims to innovate all of its packaging formats: ”We are pleased with the progress we’ve made on the Green Fiber Bottle so far. While we are not completely there yet, the two prototypes are an important step towards realizing our ultimate ambition of bringing this breakthrough to market.”
Initially, the project will manufacture a relatively low 5,000 tons of plant-based plastic a year
“Innovation takes time and we will continue to collaborate with leading experts in order to overcome remaining technical challenges, just as we did with our plastic-reducing Snap Pack,” she continued.
The plant-based plastic will be made using sugar from corn, wheat, and beets
Image credits: paperflare
65Kviews
Share on Facebook
Here's hoping this works well, BUT an important quibble: there will still be complex chains of serious ecological impacts. For starters, this new material can't really involve no use of fossil fuels if it's made from crops like corn, wheat and beets. Those crops, to be grown and harvested at scale, already consume billions of gallons of oil, and billions of gallons of water. If many farms of the near future would have to grow even more of those crops for this, (plus we're still using a lot of farming to also feed people) that may mean even more farming needs to be done. How will more farming get done in the places w/ very fertile land, like Brazil? Maybe by Brazilians cutting down more of their rainforests so that the land can grow crops. (See 'Asian Palm Oil' plantations if you want to face palm over this sort of thing). So, big improvements to the status quo are possible, but we need to think carefully about tradeoffs and each step that would be involved in the proposed changes.
Thought the exact same thing - exchanging one evil for a (only possibly) lesser evil...
Yes, and it could still be all to the net good. Among other variables, crops like corn, wheat and beets might, in the future be grown in large 'agricultural-towers' that actually don't require as much use of horizontal land space. So we may have such an abundance of such things, using such a small land-footprint that it actually wouldn't require major deforestation to have enough of them for this and also to feed people. That may be possible but there's much to consider.
The only solution is to exchange evil for compassion. Another aspect of that evil is COVID19 which was, like all previous deadly bacteria and viruses, MAN-ENABLED !!!!
It's like the biofuel debate again.
Right, you hear about ethanol, but they often don't talk about how it requires a ton of petroleum to produce ethanol. It might even use more petroleum than it saves, sigh.
For me, I am just glad that there will be less plastics in the ocean. If this reduces that, I call it a big win. And it composts back into soil that can be used to grow the crops that produce it.
A similar point to consider: 'Solar power! We want solar power now!!!!....' Well maybe. Solar cells (aka photo voltaic cells), to be created at scale, require (among many other things) industrial-scale amounts of silicon and some rare earth metals. The production of those inputs in and of themselves causes some forms of pollution and ecological problems. It may still be true that it's worth the ecological tradeoff, worth the pollution from mining rare earth metals to have a cleaner source of electricity (and possibly the energy that will make our cars go). And there's a major point to consider in that equation: the solar cell, once made, can be continuously operated w/ minimal ecological cost, whereas, say the power plant that runs on coal, oil or natural gas cannot - you have to keep polluting a lot more to keep using those. So that's a huge difference if you consider the fact that the power source will be continuously used for decades after it's created. But let's remember that nothing in the area of ecological reforms is really a simple, cut and dried, cost-free tradeoff, even in ecological terms alone (that is, to say nothing of considerations around labor standards, econ. impacts, other ethical concerns).
Yes, "nothing in the area of ecological reforms is really a simple, cut and dried, cost-free tradeoff,..." and still people are so irresponsible, waste so much - food, energy and everything else, and make harmful choices. "Unless their is a comprehensive shift in how the world eats, there is no likelihood of ......meeting the Paris Agreement on Climate change." - Eat Lancet Commission on Food, Planet, Health.
CbusResident, you mentioned "...we're still using a lot of farming to also feed people..." For your information, only 20% of all crops planted go to feed people, the rest - 80% is used to feed billions upon the billions of farm animals, slaughtered to cater to human insatiable appetite for meat!!! This is the reason for deforestation; animal agriculture is a major contributor to our planet's most significant threats, greater than industrial and car/avian pollution combined. Yes, "we" need to think carefully, what "we" do NOT need is to meat ourselves out of existence!! You mentioned how much water is used to produce crops, here is something to think about: gallons of water it takes to produce one pound of: -potatoes: 34; - oranges: 61; - rice: 299; - tofu: 302; - beef: 2,500!!!! The crops "...already consume billions of gallons of oil....." ???? Really? I didn't know oil is needed to grow plants, can you explain ??
They decompose "under normal conditions". Landfill is not a normal condition. Things buried deep in landfills without oxygen do not decompose.
That is a good point!
Then it shouldn't go to the landfill. These things are intended for organic waste recycling. They can be collected separately for recycling, and if you bury these bottles in your garden (which everyone with a garden will do), they will decompose nicely. As for the landfills, it's the place where our leftover food ends up, too, so... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
why don't you guys do composting i do and that is what i do with food scraps,biodegradable plastic and grass clippings plus the compost goes to my garden
......Where our wasted food ends up.
As long as it is not using plants that would otherwise be used for food, its a good step. From what I read elsewhere, it was using sugars from wheat. No idea if that is used in food production. Otherwise we have the similar issue as we did with biofuels, where its more valuable to grow those than food. Then there is the question of soil nutrition and our decreasing lack of nitrogen, plus the impact of fertilisers and pesticides.
Here's hoping this works well, BUT an important quibble: there will still be complex chains of serious ecological impacts. For starters, this new material can't really involve no use of fossil fuels if it's made from crops like corn, wheat and beets. Those crops, to be grown and harvested at scale, already consume billions of gallons of oil, and billions of gallons of water. If many farms of the near future would have to grow even more of those crops for this, (plus we're still using a lot of farming to also feed people) that may mean even more farming needs to be done. How will more farming get done in the places w/ very fertile land, like Brazil? Maybe by Brazilians cutting down more of their rainforests so that the land can grow crops. (See 'Asian Palm Oil' plantations if you want to face palm over this sort of thing). So, big improvements to the status quo are possible, but we need to think carefully about tradeoffs and each step that would be involved in the proposed changes.
Thought the exact same thing - exchanging one evil for a (only possibly) lesser evil...
Yes, and it could still be all to the net good. Among other variables, crops like corn, wheat and beets might, in the future be grown in large 'agricultural-towers' that actually don't require as much use of horizontal land space. So we may have such an abundance of such things, using such a small land-footprint that it actually wouldn't require major deforestation to have enough of them for this and also to feed people. That may be possible but there's much to consider.
The only solution is to exchange evil for compassion. Another aspect of that evil is COVID19 which was, like all previous deadly bacteria and viruses, MAN-ENABLED !!!!
It's like the biofuel debate again.
Right, you hear about ethanol, but they often don't talk about how it requires a ton of petroleum to produce ethanol. It might even use more petroleum than it saves, sigh.
For me, I am just glad that there will be less plastics in the ocean. If this reduces that, I call it a big win. And it composts back into soil that can be used to grow the crops that produce it.
A similar point to consider: 'Solar power! We want solar power now!!!!....' Well maybe. Solar cells (aka photo voltaic cells), to be created at scale, require (among many other things) industrial-scale amounts of silicon and some rare earth metals. The production of those inputs in and of themselves causes some forms of pollution and ecological problems. It may still be true that it's worth the ecological tradeoff, worth the pollution from mining rare earth metals to have a cleaner source of electricity (and possibly the energy that will make our cars go). And there's a major point to consider in that equation: the solar cell, once made, can be continuously operated w/ minimal ecological cost, whereas, say the power plant that runs on coal, oil or natural gas cannot - you have to keep polluting a lot more to keep using those. So that's a huge difference if you consider the fact that the power source will be continuously used for decades after it's created. But let's remember that nothing in the area of ecological reforms is really a simple, cut and dried, cost-free tradeoff, even in ecological terms alone (that is, to say nothing of considerations around labor standards, econ. impacts, other ethical concerns).
Yes, "nothing in the area of ecological reforms is really a simple, cut and dried, cost-free tradeoff,..." and still people are so irresponsible, waste so much - food, energy and everything else, and make harmful choices. "Unless their is a comprehensive shift in how the world eats, there is no likelihood of ......meeting the Paris Agreement on Climate change." - Eat Lancet Commission on Food, Planet, Health.
CbusResident, you mentioned "...we're still using a lot of farming to also feed people..." For your information, only 20% of all crops planted go to feed people, the rest - 80% is used to feed billions upon the billions of farm animals, slaughtered to cater to human insatiable appetite for meat!!! This is the reason for deforestation; animal agriculture is a major contributor to our planet's most significant threats, greater than industrial and car/avian pollution combined. Yes, "we" need to think carefully, what "we" do NOT need is to meat ourselves out of existence!! You mentioned how much water is used to produce crops, here is something to think about: gallons of water it takes to produce one pound of: -potatoes: 34; - oranges: 61; - rice: 299; - tofu: 302; - beef: 2,500!!!! The crops "...already consume billions of gallons of oil....." ???? Really? I didn't know oil is needed to grow plants, can you explain ??
They decompose "under normal conditions". Landfill is not a normal condition. Things buried deep in landfills without oxygen do not decompose.
That is a good point!
Then it shouldn't go to the landfill. These things are intended for organic waste recycling. They can be collected separately for recycling, and if you bury these bottles in your garden (which everyone with a garden will do), they will decompose nicely. As for the landfills, it's the place where our leftover food ends up, too, so... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
why don't you guys do composting i do and that is what i do with food scraps,biodegradable plastic and grass clippings plus the compost goes to my garden
......Where our wasted food ends up.
As long as it is not using plants that would otherwise be used for food, its a good step. From what I read elsewhere, it was using sugars from wheat. No idea if that is used in food production. Otherwise we have the similar issue as we did with biofuels, where its more valuable to grow those than food. Then there is the question of soil nutrition and our decreasing lack of nitrogen, plus the impact of fertilisers and pesticides.