Bad news for Greenware cups like the one below.
Study: Biodegradable Products May Be Bad For The Environment
Research from North Carolina State University shows that so-called biodegradable products are likely doing more harm than good in landfills, because they are releasing a powerful greenhouse gas as they break down.
“Biodegradable materials, such as disposable cups and utensils, are broken down in landfills by microorganisms that then produce methane,” says Dr. Morton Barlaz, co-author of a paper describing the research and professor and head of NC State’s Department of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering. “Methane can be a valuable energy source when captured, but is a potent greenhouse gas when released into the atmosphere.”
And the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that only about 35 percent of municipal solid waste goes to landfills that capture methane for energy use. EPA estimates that another 34 percent of landfills capture methane and burn it off on-site, while 31 percent allow the methane to escape.
“In other words,” Barlaz says, “biodegradable products are not necessarily more environmentally friendly when disposed in landfills.”
This problem may be exacerbated by the rate at which these man-made biodegradable materials break down. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) guidelines call for products marked as “biodegradable” to decompose within “a reasonably short period of time” after disposal. But such rapid degradation may actually be environmentally harmful, because federal regulations do not require landfills that collect methane to install gas collection systems for at least two years after the waste is buried. If materials break down and release methane quickly, much of that methane will likely be emitted before the collection technology is installed. This means less potential fuel for energy use, and more greenhouse gas emissions.
As a result, the researchers find that a slower rate of biodegradation is actually more environmentally friendly, because the bulk of the methane production will occur after the methane collection system is in place. Some specific biodegradable products such as bags that hold yard waste and are always sent to composting or anaerobic digestion facilities were not included in the study.
“If we want to maximize the environmental benefit of biodegradable products in landfills,” Barlaz says, “we need to both expand methane collection at landfills and design these products to degrade more slowly – in contrast to FTC guidance.”
The paper, “Is Biodegradability a Desirable Attribute for Discarded Solid Waste? Perspectives from a National Landfill Greenhouse Gas Inventory Model,” was co-authored by Barlaz and NC State Ph.D. student James Levis, and was published online May 27 by the journal Environmental Science & Technology. The research was supported by Procter & Gamble and the Environmental Research and Education Foundation.
-shipman-
The study abstract follows.
“Is Biodegradability a Desirable Attribute for Discarded Solid Waste? Perspectives from a National Landfill Greenhouse Gas Inventory Model”
Authors: James W. Levis, Morton A. Barlaz, North Carolina State University
Published: Online May 27, Environmental Science & Technology
Abstract: There is increasing interest in the use of biodegradable materials because they are believed to be “greener”. In a landfill, these materials degrade anaerobically to form methane and carbon dioxide. The fraction of the methane that is collected can be utilized as an energy source and the fraction of the biogenic carbon that does not decompose is stored in the landfill. A landfill life-cycle model was developed to represent the behavior of MSW components and new materials disposed in a landfill representative of the U.S. average with respect to gas collection and utilization over a range of environmental conditions (i.e., arid, moderate wet, and bioreactor). The behavior of materials that biodegrade at relatively fast (food waste), medium (biodegradable polymer) and slow (newsprint and office paper) rates was studied. Poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyoctanoate) (PHBO) was selected as illustrative for an emerging biodegradable polymer. Global warming potentials (GWP) of 26, 720, -1000, 990, and 1300 kg CO2e wet Mg1_ were estimated for MSW, food waste, newsprint, office paper, and PHBO, respectively in a national average landfill. In a state-of-the-art landfill with gas collection and electricity generation, GWP’s of -250, 330, -1400, -96, and -420 kg CO2e wet Mg1 _ were estimated for MSW, food waste, newsprint, office paper and PHBO, respectively. Additional simulations showed that for a hypothetical material, a slower biodegradation rate and a lower extent of biodegradation improve the environmental performance of a material in a landfill representative of national average conditions.
Pardon my French, as it were, but does that cup really say:
f-k.com
Sums it up, really.
Wonder how many acres of landfill could be bought with the money that was wasted on this study?
Since when it methane, a naturally occuring gas of decomposition, ever been a threat to life on Earth? This gas is simply a stage in the release of energy that initially came to the Planet from the Sun.
This too shall pass, for those espousing imminent danger over methane are themselves full of it /sarc
Oh, good. I just posted this in Tips. Apparently I did have a good idea; it became an article while I was typing.
So they want it to decompose into what exactly? Water? No, that’s a more potent greenhouse gas! Methane has a halflife in the atmosphere of like 10-12 years; it gradually converts to CO2 and…yup Water.
So take all these bio-degradable products and throw them into a bio-vat to make methane to burn for energy – oh wait, but then you have to use all of the energy to pump the CO2 into the ground so never mind.
You just cannot win against global warming phobia. You have to crawl over into a corner and curl up into a ball doing nothing for fear of destroying the world. Or…get on with life and accept your presence is going to add CO2 to the atmosphere.
The methane concentration in the atmosphere is fairly stable (if not declining). It all turns to CO2 anyway within a generation. Never understood the methane doom story.
This is beyond hilarious.
All I can think of to say is “Poor Greenies!” You try to good to Mother Nature and she goes and shoots you in the tush for your efforts.
f-k.com
Well, there’s an appropriate website name.. the dash obviously replaces the letters U and C.
I wonder how many greenies will stop using biodegradable products now?
Burn it in Situ….
Oh wait…
There must be something we can use to make a 100% environmentally friendly beverage cup…. something… Wait, I know, dung cups! Dung is naturally occuring and when your done your slushie you can bury the cup in your garden or even just throw it onto your lawn… natural fertilizer! I believe it may be somewhat hard to market, but these people do want to save the planet, after all, so no sacrifice is too great, right?
The law of unintended consequences strikes again.
My comment exists of two words: Foxtrot Oscar
Looks like the greenies skipped another science class. Methane release is part of the digestion/breakdown of organic/bio materials. Make it break down faster it releases methane faster. This if basic BIOLOGY.
“anaerobic digestion facilities were not included in the study.”
you’re kidding me, right? A what?
@Dave N….not one.They can’t read and digest facts remember?Just crap. ALL material is bio-degradable,it’s just a matter of how long it takes.Same as ALL food is organic.If it wasn’t,we’d be dead from eating it. Oh wait(Spain)
As a chemist I always was against biodegradable garbage. Even diamonds are biodegradable given enough time. The problem is really the time we allow garbage to decompose. The environment is simply not capable of absorbing so much derivative products from the decomposition in such little time. I would prefer to have garbage that don’t decompose too fast in order to recycle them efficiently with little modification.
Methane: a nice high-calory flammable gas. It’s been known for decades land fills produce methane in quantity.
It should be captured and used—after all, it’s a renewable alternative energy source … so why are we worried about bio-degradable cups producing methane? We should be worried we’re not exploiting the methane … so let’s do that and bury more of those cups.
Maybe with enough government subsidy, research grants, and tax law contortions an enterprising and innovative person could figure out how to make variously shaped items for drinking out of from silica. Wait a minute . . . !
Instead of making trash biodegradeable to methane for use as fuel, burn the trash directly for electricity and cut out the middleman, so to speak.
Whilst Methane is, in one sense, a poweful greenhouse gas it only blocks outgoing radiation over a narrow spectrum (which it shares with Nitrous Oxide). Even if all radiation in that specturm were to be blocked its effect on temperature would be minimal.
http://www.climatedata.info/Forcing/Emissions/introduction.html
We should not forget, however, that methane, although supposedly 20 times better as a heat-trapping gas is measured in ppb in the atmosphere. It is 1000-10,000 LESS abundant and thus accounts for a truly negligible amount of supposed warming, being 50-500 times less in effectiveness taking into account the 20x comparison.
Methane’s half-life in the atmosphere is also quite short, as is CO2’s 5.4 year half-life.
Another tempest in a teapot brought to us by the Panic-artist bed-wetting warmists.
Is it even possible to create a non-biodegradable hydrocarbon substance?
Anaerobic digesters are also another Greeny promoted technology for sustainability. What they won’t tell you is that those are not only not really efficient but also that they are leaking methane is very impressive quantities since they are not exactly 100% sealed. Another inconvenient truth for the Greenies.
Let’s also not forget that the vast majority of greenie products are less functional than the ones they replace.
The other week I lost a rather nice bottle of wine because the wretched “biodegradable” bag split when I was carrying it home.
Then you have lead free solder which doesn’t solder as well as the old stuff. Light bulbs? Don’t even go there. Eco – friendly paint? Yes, only costs twice as much per can as the old stuff and then you have to apply twice as many coats to get it to cover. Eco-low-flush toilets? Yes, enjoy hanging about to wait for the cistern to fill so you can flush it again. And again.
Great stuff.
And coming back to bags, the damned things only ‘biodegrade’ in quite specific conditions anyway. See a bag blown into someone’s hedge? It won’t have ‘biodegraded’ three months later. Or six months.