New Energy Watch

Biodegradable Products Institute

The Biodegradable Products Institute is a not-for-profit group whose members include "leading resin suppliers (such as BASF, Cargill Dow Polymers, DuPont and Novamont); biodegradable product manufacturers and distributors (such as BioBag Canada, BioGroup US, BIOTA Spring Water, BioSphere Industries, Farnell Packaging, NAT-UR Inc & Polargruppen A/S); governmental officials (Mass. Dept of Environmental Protection) and the scientific community (Ramani Narayan-Chairman of ASTM Subcommittee D20.96 on Environmentally Degradable Plastics)."

BPI has been leading the efforts to clarify use of the word "biodegradable," which has been abused by a multitude of companies in PR greenwashing campaigns. Often these companies just slap on a label with the word "biodegradable" with little or no research, and no adherence to any standard. But good scientific standards such as ASTM 6400 and ASTM 6868, do exist, and BPI leads the way in steering companies to these standards.

Even though biodegradability and composting are key concepts, BPI extols the even greater importance of recycling, reusing, and not overburdening landfills in the first place.

~~~~~~~~~~

Doug Logan

Maersk Line and the World Shipping Council's Vessel Efficiency System

Slowing the transport speed of an 800-foot container ship from, say, 16 knots to 12 knots, serves two purposes. It saves money for the shipping company and the client, and it reduces carbon pollution by a significant amount. Here are two sources of information on the topic: 

World Shipping Council Proposes global Vessel Efficiency System to reduce carbon emissions. (Maersk Line) 

and

Slow Trip Across Sea Aids Profit and Environment  (New York Times) 

The same is true for vehicles on the highway. If we want to get serious about reducing demand for OPEC oil, the impact on the environment, and the impact on our wallets, we should consider slowing down a bit. It won't hurt anyone, and the benefits are immediate, tangible, and uncomplicated.

Cap and Trade or Carbon Tax? How About Both?

If enacted, cap and trade proposals to reduce carbon emissions will be, at best, difficult to regulate and enforce, and slow to take effect. At worst they are decent ideas that have been cynically co-opted and cleverly filled with loopholes and boondoggles by lobbyists to benefit their high-polluting clients and the financial giants behind them.

Even if cap and trade were legislated perfectly and followed honestly, it's a complicated a way to reduce demand for fossil fuels quickly. A simpler, better way would be the "fee and dividend" alternative explained by James Hansen in the New York Times. Hansen is head of the NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and a controversial figure. As a climate scientist he first raised the alarm about global warming more than 20 years ago; as an activist he has been outspoken in his opposition to the vested industrial, financial, and political interests resisting calls for climate-change mitigation. He has been arrested for his efforts to disrupt coal mining, and has to some extent alienated himself from entrenched interests across the board -- both political parties, some environmental organizations who don't like a bull in their china shops, and of course the fossil-fuel industries and their backers.

But if we can't decide between cap-and-trade and a carbon tax, which even Lindsey Graham thinks is the solution, here's an idea -- let's do both.