Browse
Engage
Research
SAN DIEGO, CA — Companies that say their packaging will biodegrade in landfills as if that feature is a benefit are actually touting that they're contributing to a system that hurts the environment.
As more companies are marketing the fact that their wrappers, boxes and other packaging materials will break down in landfills, the Sustainable Packaging Coalition (SPC) looked into if that really is a positive when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions.
The coalition, a project of non-profit GreenBlue, found that waste biodegrading in landfills has an overall negative impact on greenhouse gas emissions, and it's not going to get much better in the foreseeable future.
Many landfill sites have installed gas-capturing systems to keep some gases generated by waste out of the atmosphere. The systems don't capture 100 percent of emissions, but can redirect a large chunk of them after a few years in operation.
Landfill gas is made up of carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane, which is 25 times more potent than CO2 in contributing to global warming. At sites where gas is captured, the methane is combusted to create energy.
The SPC found that its takes seven units of methane being turned into energy to offset one unit of greenhouse gas emissions (when the different gases' impacts are normalized). As of 2009, 30 percent of the methane made at landfills in the U.S. was being turned into energy, and 40 percent was being emitted, making emissions from landfill biodegradation overall harmful.
Positive impact would come from a scenario where more than 70 percent of methane is turned into energy, but that comes with other caveats, like needing microorganisms to do a better job of weakening more methane.
"It is theoretically possible that biodegradation in landfills could someday incur a net beneficial greenhouse gas impact, but it is not probable that all landfills in the U.S. will be outfitted with optimal energy recovery systems," the report says. "In the foreseeable future, biodegradation in landfills may be expected to continue resulting in a harmful greenhouse gas impact."
The report, "Assessing the Greenhouse Gas Impacts of Biodegradation in Landfills," was announced at the Sustainable Packaging Coalition's spring meeting.
Landfill - CC license by M Glasgow (Flickr)
Adam cites SPC. Look a little
Adam cites SPC. Look a little deeper in that landfill Adam and you will find that two of the nine founding members of " SPC " are Cargill Dow LLC (now NatureWorks /PLA)and Dow Chemical Company. Both of these companies have invested millions of dollars in promoting their food based (corn) plastics that use their fertilizers, pesticides,and herbicides to grow their corn. Let's feed the world's poor and not dump "roundup" into our rivers, lakes, streams and oceans creating massive dead zones.
We appreciate GreenBiz.com
We appreciate GreenBiz.com covering the release of our report, "Assessing the Greenhouse Gas Impacts of Biodegradation in Landfills," and Jonathan Bardelline's reporting work, which accurately conveys the information in the report. However, the article title is misleading and misrepresents the content of our research.
The Sustainable Packaging Coalition, a project of GreenBlue, initiated this report to look at the climate impacts of landfills. The report did not focus on biodegradable packaging and makes no conclusions about whether biodegradable packaging is good or bad for the environment. We released this report to provide objective research in response to an increasing amount of claims that biodegradation in landfills can be a benefit due to energy capture. The focus here is on landfills, as the article reports, not on the benefits or challenges of biodegradable packaging.
Biodegradability is an attribute that allows some packaging to be diverted from landfills. Our intention was to illuminate the importance of diverting biodegradable packaging from landfills, and not to discourage the use of biodegradable packaging in general
Adam Gendell
Report Author
Project Associate, GreenBlue
This article is completely
This article is completely confusing and the title misleading. All the author said was that putting anything in landfills is bad for the environment because of the emissions, regardless of whether the product is labeled "biodegradable" or not. Technically, everything is biodegradable, the only difference is the amount of time it takes to complete this process.
As an earlier comment stated, biodegradable packaging isn't intended for landfills anyways. Although there is no current ASTM standard for biodegradability, as they use the word compostable instead, it's hard to be sure what end of life manufacturers assume. Maybe manufacturers are intending these products to be landfilled? Even most of the compostable products are only compostable in compost facilities anyways; the controlled environment in landfills prevents rapid biodegradation.
Either way, this article has nothing to do whether biodegradable packaging is better or worse for the environment.
The fact that the word
The fact that the word 'landfill' is even included in an article about biodegradable packaging is an ode to the way people think in this day and age. If packaging is biodegradable it shouldn't even end up in a landfill. Compost it! Food shouldn't end up in a landfill either. Neither should paper. Metal can usually be recycled easily. Glass should be at least repurposed. If these things were required to be separated we'd have a lot less stuff in the landfill in the first place. Until then, people should at least make an attempt to ease the situation. Chances are, if you buy products with biodegradable packaging, I would hope that you understand that nothing really biodegrades in an oxygen-starved landfill.
I am not sure what the point
I am not sure what the point of this article was. Is biodegradable "less bad" for the environment than non-biodegradable plastic?
Interesting article, despite
Interesting article, despite the math/conceptual errors.
1. Energy is neither created nor destroyed. Combusted methane *CAN* generate steam for heat, or to spin a turbine making electricity, but not "to create energy."
2. If "30 percent of the methane made at landfills in the U.S. was being turned into energy, and 40 percent was being emitted..." my first question is: 'What happens to the remaining 30 percent?' My guess is that your missing third (rounded) is being combusted without energy recovery ("flared"). I do agree with your premise that landfilling is not an effective path to sustainable living.
Thanks for the news. Good to
Thanks for the news. Good to know, even if it's not "good" to know. I'd like to see a straight comparison of non-biodegradable Styrofoam and plastic containers to biodegradable alternatives, across their entire life cycle. Plastic and Styrofoam don't break down in landfills, but does their production produce more gases and a larger carbon footprint than biodegradable packaging?