Boxes
Box 26 Contextual Design (the Case of Plastic)
Design must work into existing systems to change them. This is illustrated by the current
debate over which is more ecologically sound: plant-based or fossil fuel-based plastics. The
production of plastics involves fossil fuels as a raw material and energy source. Power plants
and transport systems use more than 90 per cent of oil, and plastics use most of the remainder.
On the one hand, some scientists argue that plants should not be used as a raw material for
plastics, but instead should be used as an energy source. Bio-engineered plant production is
energy intensive. On the other hand, a firm currently producing plant-based plastics argues
that as their technologies develop, energy efficiency will be greatly increased over time. After
all, fossil fuel processes have had 200 years of development to improve efficiency.
1
Due to
the changing geopolitical and biophysical context, corn-based recycling is already economically
competitive.
2
Plastics can be grown in plants via a fermentation process or in the stalks and
leaves of bioengineered crops:
•
Fermentation process:
Typically, the plants are processed for sugar, which is then
fermented. In this process, micro-organisms convert
the sugar into lactic acid, which is
then chemically transformed into plastic.
•
Bioengineering process: The fermentation process can be skipped by using bioengineered
corn. The plants can be harvested for their corn and the stalks and leaves can then be
harvested for plastic. In other words, this means two uses for the corn.
Some advantages of plant-based plastics are that:
•
They are biodegradable and compostable (ie reduce landfill
and cause less harm to
animals); however, this process emits greenhouse gases.
•
Their production is far more energy-intensive than conventional petrochemical plastics,
but uses far less fossil fuel as a raw material.
•
The price of oil is rising, making corn-based plastic economically competitive.
•
Burning the carbon in stalks does not increase net carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
– assuming crops that absorb the same amount of carbon dioxide replace the plants.
•
They cannot easily be separated from bottles made from
petroleum without expensive
sorting equipment, which is out of reach of many small-scale recyclers.
•
They can contaminate the recycling of fossil fuel plastic if they get in the waste stream,
and thus undermine the investment in recycling.
Some advantages of fossil fuel-based plastics are that:
•
Plastics grown in corn compete with other agricultural uses for land and water.
•
Plastics can sequester carbon if buried in landfill.
•
They are produced from fossil fuels as a raw material; however, far less fossil fuel (energy
and emissions) is required in their production than plant-based plastics.
•
A lot of energy is required to grow corn.
The above simplified list of issues suggests apparent tradeoffs:
•
Relative value of agricultural land versus use of fossil fuel energy with emissions.
•
Relative value of fossil fuels as non-renewable raw material versus
using fossil fuels in
energy production, which produces greenhouse gases.
•
Economic and other values of established recycling industries versus avoiding the
transport and machinery entailed in recycling.
•
Relative biodegradability versus carbon storage potential for fossil-based plastic.
In either case, the crops are generally grown using mineral fertilizer, which is produced in a
very energy-intensive process which uses fossil fuels in the production of energy. If crops are
fertilized with compost
rather than nitrogen, the environmental impacts are greatly reduced.
3
The debates usually omit the design approach: to consider whether we really need the products
and, if so, to consider whether there are better means of meeting the same needs.
311