The new bioeconomy

Last week we explored using biomass as fuel, and some of the implications in doing that.  Previously we looked at using biomass in the world of fabrics and furnishings,  which include the new biotech products polylactic acid (PLA) (DuPont’s Ingeo and Sorona fibers) and soy-based foam for upholstery  (click  here and here to see our posts).  The ideas being presented by new bio technologies are not new – in the 19^th century Rumpelstiltskin spun straw into gold – and the idea has always held a fascination for humans.

There is a new report called “The New Biomassters – Synthetic Biology and The Next Assault on Biodiversity and Livelihoods” (click here to download the report) published by The ETC Group, which focuses on the social and economic impacts of new bio technologies.  This report paints an even more troubling picture than what I’ve been able to uncover to date, and the information contained in this post comes from that report:

“Under the pretext of addressing environmental degredation, climate change and the energy and food crisis, and using the rhetoric of the “new” bioeconomy  (“sustainability”, “green economy”, “clean tech”, “clean development”) industry is talking about  solving these problems by substituting fossil carbon for that of living matter.    The term “bioeconomy” is based on the notion that biological systems and resources can be harnessed to maintain current industrial systems of production, consumption and capital accumulation.” 

Sold as an ecological switch from a ‘black carbon’ (i.e. fossil) economy to a ‘green carbon’ (plant-based) – and therefore a “clean” form of development –  this emerging bioeconomy is in fact, according to ETC,  “a red-hot resource grab of the lands, livelihoods, knowledge and resources of peoples in the global South” (because 86% of that biomass is located in the tropics and subtropics).

What does a new bioeconomy look like?  According to the ETC:   “as the DNA found in living cells is decoded into genetic information for use in biotechnology applications, genetic sequences  acquire a new value as the building blocks of designed biological production systems. By hijacking the ‘genetic instructions’ of cells … to force them to produce industrial products, industry transforms synthetic organisms into bio-factories that can be deployed elsewhere on the globe – either in private vats or plantations.  Nature is altered to meet business interests.”

They go on to say that as ecosystems collapse and biodiversity declines, new markets in ecosystem “services” will enable the trading of ecological ‘credits.’   The declared aim is to “incentivize conservation” by creating a profit motive in order to justify interventions in large-scale natural systems such as hydrological cycles, the carbon cycle or the nitrogen cycle.[1] Like the ‘services’ of an industrial production system, these ‘ecosystem services,’ created to privatize natural processes, will become progressively more effective at serving the interests of business.

It seems to be all about profit.

The ETC report states that concerted attempts are already underway by many industrial players to shift industrial production feedstocks from fossil fuels to the 230 billion tons of ‘biomass’ (living stuff) that the Earth produces every year -not just for liquid fuels but also for production of power, chemicals, plastics and more.

The visible players involved in commodifying the 76% of terrestrial living material that is not yet incorporated in the global economy include BP, Shell, Total, Exxon, Cargill, DuPont, BASF, Syngenta and Weyerhaeuser.   Enabling this attempt is the adoption of synthetic biology techniques (extreme genetic engineering) by these well-funded companies.

“We have modest goals of replacing the whole petrochemical industry and becoming a major source of energy.”

– J. Craig Venter, founder Synthetic Genomics, Inc.[2]

There is lots more in the ETC report, here’s just a summary of some other issues:

• The report examines the next generation biofuels, including algal biofuels and synthetic hydrocarbons, and establishes the case for why this generation may be as ecologically and socially dangerous as the first.  Even leading companies and scientists involved in synthetic biology agree that some oversight is necessary – currently it’s being mostly ignored and is not on the agenda for the Rio+20 summit to be held in Brazil in June.
• Today’s synthetic biology is unpredictable, untested and poorly understood.  Could open a Pandora’s box of consequences.  See:  http://www.cbd.int/doc/emerging-issues/foe-synthetic-biology-for-biofuels-2011-013-en.pdf
• The “green” credentials of current bio-based plastics and chemicals are called into question.  (See our posts on biopolymers – click here and here).
• How much biomass is enough?  “Attempting to set an ‘acceptable level’ of biomass extraction is as inappropriate as forcing a blood donation from a hemorrhaging patient. Already struggling to maintain life support, the planet simply does not have any biomass to spare. Human beings already capture on-fourth of land based biomass for food, heat and shelter; attempts to define a limit beyond which ecosystems lose resilience and begin to break down reveal that we consumed past such limits 20 years ago.”
• Biomass is considered a “renewable resource” – and it is true that while plants may be renewable in a short period of time, the soils and ecosystem that they depend on may not be.  Industrial agriculture and forest biomass extraction rob soils of nutrients, organic matter, water and structure, decreasing fertility and leaving ecosystems more vulnerable or even prone to collapse. Associated use of industrial chemicals and poor land management can make things worse. In practice, therefore, biomass is often only truly renewable when extracted in such small amounts that they are not of interest to industry.
• The claim that biomass technology will be a stepping stone to a new mix of energy sources misses the whole point – that we are facing a crisis of overproduction and consumption.  Reducing our overall energy demands is critical, as it boosting support for decentralized peasant agriculture.

---

[1] See for example, The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity:

Ecological and Economic Foundations. Edited By Pushpam Kumar. An

output of TEEB: The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity,

Earthscan Oct. 2010

[2] Michael Graham Richard, “Geneticist Craig Venter Wants to Create Fuel from CO2,” Treehugger, 29 February 2008. Available online at: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/02/craig-venter-fuel-co2-tedconference.php

Is biomass carbon neutral?

Global climate change is the major environmental issue of current times. Evidence for global climate change is accumulating and there is a growing consensus that the most important cause is humankind’s interference in the natural cycle of greenhouse gases. (Greenhouse gases get their name from their ability to trap the sun’s heat in the earth’s atmosphere – the so-called greenhouse effect.)

CO₂ emissions are recognized as the most important contributor to this problem. Since the turn of the 20th century the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases has been increasing rapidly, and the two main causes have been identified as:

1. burning of fossil fuels and
2. land-use change, particularly deforestation.

And now the world has discovered plants.  People seem to think there is some magic in nature – that they can keep taking and things will grow back.  We can buy “carbon offsets” to mitigate our guilt – trees planted to “offset” our energy consumption for, maybe, a plane ride to Hawaii.

Because the carbon emitted when plants are burned is equal to that absorbed during growing, it seems self-evident that biomass is a zero carbon (or carbon neutral) fuel.[1]  The thinking goes like this:  Plants are busy converting CO2 to stored (“sequestered”) carbon in their branches, roots, stems and leaves – so when that plant is burned, the carbon which is released (as CO2) is replaced by another plant which is busy sequestering that carbon.

Why is burning fossil fuel – which  also releases CO2 when burned  – not considered to be carbon neutral?  As far as I can tell, it’s a matter of definition.  Today, the definition of carbon neutral means that the greenhouse gases released  by burning fuel is the same or less than the carbon that was stored in recent history (translation = plants, which grow and mature within 100 years or so, i.e., “recent history”). Releasing carbon that was stored in ancient history, such as  burning fossil fuels (which comes from plant material millions of years old)  introduces extra carbon to the environment. Because fossil fuels contain carbon that was in the environment in ancient times, by burning fossil fuels we release greenhouse gasses that wouldn’t naturally be there!

That concept took off.  Beginning with the Koyoto Protocol, which overlooked reduction targets for biomass, others embraced the concept of using biomass as a carbon neutral fuel:  the EU Emissions Trading Scheme counts biomass as “carbon neutral” as do UK Building Regulations, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development and the World Resources Institute –  despite the recognition that this definition is problematic.[2]  Biomass burning is being ramped up all around the world in the name of green energy.

The concept of biomass as being carbon neutral is so popular that the European Union’s energy objectives for 2020 include the requirement that 20% of the total be from renewable sources, made up from biomass such as wood, waste and agricultural crops and residues.[3]  And the biomass industry in the US asked for an exemption from the Environmental Protection Agency’s greenhouse gas regulations because, it claims, biomass is carbon neutral.  In January 2011, the EPA gave them a 3 year exemption.

This loophole gives oil companies, power plants and industries that face tighter pollution limits a cheap means to claim reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. According to a number of studies, applying this incentive globally could lead to the loss of most of the world’s natural forests as carbon caps tighten.  A very frightening scenario indeed, since deforestation is responsible for up to 20% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions – more than all cars, trains, planes, boats and trains in the world combined. [4]

I found a great blog post on this subject by Jeff Gibbs on Huffington Post Green, and I’ve relied on it for much of this post.  Here are just two of the issues:

Issue 1:  “Trees not harvested will eventually die and be decomposed by insects, fungi, bacteria, and other microorganisms which will release all the carbon dioxide that burning would. This cycling process has been going on for half a billion years, long before humans had a hand in it, and will continue with or without us.”

Here’s what Jeff Gibbs has to say:

• “Actually nature has plans for that dead tree. For one it’s food for the next generation of forest life. And it turns out trees are pretty good at transferring their CO2 to the soil rather than the atmosphere when they fall over dead. Underground roots of mushrooms called mycorrhiza digest the wood and keeps the carbon the trees had sucked from the air in the forest soil.   The proof? It’s called coal.  Millions of generations of plants and trees have taken in carbon from the air and deposited it as mountains of coal. It’s what trees and plants do. Because trees and plants took the CO2 out of the atmosphere we have the nice comfortable climate we enjoy today. It’s not their fault we’re releasing everything they worked so hard to lock away, and if we cut then down they are going to have that much more difficult of a time soaking the carbon back up.”

Issue 2:  “Carbon dioxide –  released by burning biomass – is carbon dioxide that was taken from the air as the trees grew, and the trees that replace the harvested biomass will grow by taking in carbon dioxide again.”

This is so fraught with different issues that we have to break it down into manageable segments to understand why this is not as simple as it seems:

1.   When you cut down a fully mature, multi-ton tree, how long do you think it will be before the one-ounce sapling that replaces it will be able to replicate the carbon uptake of the multi-ton tree?  Some trees take 100 years or more to mature.  When burned for energy, a mature tree (80-100 years old) takes minutes to release its full load of carbon into the atmosphere, but its replacement, if grown, takes a full century to re-sequester that carbon. For those 100 years, the CO2 is still aloft in the atmosphere helping push the climate toward the point of dangerous change, and yet carbon accounting rules treat it as non-existent.  After the initial release of carbon sequestered in a standing forest, a well-managed forest will start re-growing and at some point in time will achieve approximately the same concentration of carbon sequestration as the original forest.  But during that time, the atmospheric concentration of heat trapping gasses has been higher than it would otherwise have been, increasing associated environmental damages, and we have foregone the sequestration that would have happened in the original forest![5]
2.  Chopping down forests to burn for ethanol production — even if replanted as tree plantations — is like biting the hand that feeds you. “Natural forests, with their complex ecosystems, cannot be regrown like a crop of beans or lettuce,” reports the nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a leading environmental group. “And tree plantations will never provide the clean water, storm buffers, wildlife habitat and other ecosystem services that natural forests do.”[6]
3.  Recent studies show that there is more biomass contained IN the soil than in what grows ON the soil above ground.   This soil carbon can be disturbed and released by harvesting and reforestation activities.[7]
4.  In a study published by the Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, it was found that burning  trees emits about 30% more carbon pollution than coal, which the report calls the “carbon debt” of biomass. [8]   According to the study,  under normal forest management   it takes over 21 years just to re-absorb the extra pollution that is released in the first year of burning the wood.    Also, the energy content of biomass is about 40% lower than that of regular fossil fuels, so you need to burn more of it to get the same power, which means more CO2. (to read more about this, click here.)
5.  It is simply not possible to plant sufficient numbers of trees to deal with the increased carbon dioxide emissions that are expected over the next half century.  According to Harpers Index, the number of years the United States could meet its energy needs by burning all its trees is … 1.
6.  Recent evidence suggests that global warming itself is stressing ecosystems and turning forests and forest soils into failing forests and, in the long run, into net sources of CO2. Thus, if we don’t curb our use of fossil fuels, it won’t matter how many trees we plant because these forests will be overcome and die as the climate continues to warm.[9]
7.  Old-growth forests are often replaced by tree-farm plantations that are heavily managed (including with chemicals and fossil fuel-intensive machinery) and do not offer the same biodiversity benefits as natural forests.
8.  Investment in forestry offsets does not contribute to reducing society’s dependence on fossil fuels, something that is ultimately needed to address climate change. Responding to climate change means fundamentally changing the way we produce and use energy.
9.  All biomass is not created equal.  According to Jeff Gibbs, some biomass plants burn old tires; others shovel in old houses and creosote soaked railroad ties. I don’t know what’s “bio” about all this but the energy you get is considered carbon neutral and renewable.

Here are Jeff Gibb’s seven truths that the Lorax would have us remember:

1. Saving our forests (and that doesn’t mean more tree plantations) is the best way to stop global warming and save humanity.
2. Deforestation is just as likely to result in the end of humanity as climate change and it’s right on track to do so.
3. Burning things is the most insane way to stop global warming since doctors drilled holes in skulls to let the demons out and gave you a bill for it.
4. There is no extra in nature and there is not enough “bio” on the planet to be burned, turned to ethanol, biodiesel or jet fuel, or bio-charcoal.
5. Woody biomass falsely deemed renewable energy increases the CO2 in the atmosphere, destroys forests, and prevents renewables from being fully explored.
6. Geo-engineering the forests, atmosphere or oceans to stop global warming isn’t going to work. We can’t even figure out how to stop carp from taking over a river or bugs from eating a forest.
7. There is a possibility that the only way to heal the planet is to get control of our own numbers and consumption while letting nature do the work she has done for three billion years: run the planet.

---

[1] Grant, Nick and Clarke, Alan, “Biomass – a burning issue”, http://www.aecb.net/UserFiles/File/Biomass%20-%20A%20Burning%20Issue%20-%20published%20September%2020101.pdf

[2] Johnson, Eric, “Goodbye to carbon neutral:  Getting Biomass footprints right”, Atlantic Consulting, Gattikon, Switzerland, November 2008.

[3] Neslan, Arthur, Guardian Environment Network, April 2, 2012. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/apr/02/eu-renewable-energy-target-biomass

[4] Greenpeace, “Solutions to Deforestation”;  http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/forests/solutions-to-deforestation/

[5] Natural Resrouces Defense Council comments with respect to draft Policy DAR-12, June 17, 2010.

[6] Scheer, Roddy and Moss, Doug, “EarthTalk”, E-The Environmental Magazine.  http://azdailysun.com/news/science/earthtalk-biomass-hardly-carbon-neutral/article_7111cb33-c27f-5e95-a5a7-133fc8b123db.html

[7] David Suzuki Foundation, “The problems with carbon offsets from tree-planting”, http://www.davidsuzuki.org/issues/climate-change/science/the-problems-with-carbon-offsets-from-tree-planting/http://www.davidsuzuki.org/issues/climate-change/science/the-problems-with-carbon-offsets-from-tree-planting/

[8] “Biomass Sustainability and Carbon Policy Study”, Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, June 2010

[9] David Suzuki Foundation, Ibid.

Climate change and extreme weather

I just saw this powerful video based on a recent editorial by Bill McKibben  in the Washington Post on May 23, 2011.   Narritation is  by Stephen Thomson of Plomomedia.com, who accompanies the piece with striking footage of the events Bill wrote about.

White biotechnology and enzymes

For tens of thousands of years, humans relied on nature to provide them with everything they needed to make their lives more comfortable -cotton and wool for clothes, wood for furniture, clay and ceramic for storage containers, even plants for medicines. But this all changed during the first half of the twentieth century, when organic chemistry developed methods to create many of these products from oil.  Oil-derived synthetic polymers, colored with artificial dyes, soon replaced their precursors from the natural world.

But today, with growing concerns about the dependence on imported oil and the awareness that the world’s oil supplies are not limitless, coupled with stricter environmental regulations,  chemical and biotechnology industries are exploring nature’s richness in search of methods to replace petroleum-based synthetics.  As with other forms of biotechnology, industrial biotech involves engineering biological molecules and microbes with desirable new properties. What is different is how they are then used: to replace chemical processes with biological ones. Whether this is to produce chemicals for other processes or to create products such as biopolymers with new properties, there is a  huge effort to harness biology to accomplish what previously needed big, dirty chemical factories, but in cleaner and greener ways.

The public has for a long time perceived biotechnology to mean dangerous meddling with the genes in food and fiber crops.  But biotechnology is about much more than transgenic crops – it also uses microbes to make pharmaceuticals, for example.  Industrial biotechnology is known as “white” biotechnology, as distinct from “red” biotechnology, which is devoted to medical and pharmaceutical purposes, and “green” biotechnology, or the application of biotechnology in agriculture.

From: EuropaBio

Today, the application of biotechnology to industrial processes holds many promises for sustainable development.  One of the first goals on white biotechnology’s agenda has been the production of biodegradable plastics, and in textiles,  DuPont has invested much in the production of textile fibers from corn sugar (Sorona ®) while Cargill Dow has introduced NatureWorks ™, a polymer made from lactic acid which is used in textiles under the brand name Ingeo ®.  And these new processes have resulted in considerable environmental benefits:  In the case of Sorona ®, for example,  DuPont was able to replace the toxic elements of ethylene glycol and carbon monoxide in typical PET fibers with benign corn sugars.

But there are challenges pertaining to these new bioplastics, and the evidence that they’re actually better for the planet is hotly debated.  As Jim Thomas argues in the New Internationalist online magazine:

Strictly speaking a bioplastic is a polymer that has been produced from a plant instead of from petroleum. That is neither a new breakthrough nor a guarantee of ecological soundness. The earliest plastics such as celluloid were made from tree cellulose before petroleum proved itself a cheaper source. Today, with oil prices skyrocketing, it’s cheaper feedstock –  not green principles –  that is driving chemical companies back to bio-based plastics. Bioplastics may bring in the greenbacks for investors but are they actually green for the planet? The evidence is not convincing. For a start bioplastics may or may not be degradable or biodegradable – two terms that mean very different things. Many bio-based plastics – like DuPont’s Sorona – make no claims to break down in the environment. So much for disposal. But replacing fossil fuels with plants has to be a good idea, right? This is the premise on which the green claims of bioplastics mostly rest. Unfortunately, as advocates of biofuels have learned, switching from oil to biomass as the feedstock of our industrial economy carries its own set of problems. Like hunger.

There is nothing sustainable or organic about most industrial agriculture feedstocks. At present genetically modified corn grown using pesticides is probably the leading source of starch for bioplastics.  The link between genetic contamination and bioplastics is strong.

As concerns mount, the Sustainable Biomaterials Collaborative (SBC) – a network of 16 civil society groups and ethical businesses – is working to define a truly sustainable bioplastic. One of its founders, Tom Lent, explains that the SBC started because ‘the promise of bioplastics was not being realized’.

But biotechnology is not just about bioplastics – it’s actually mostly, these days,  about enzymes.  Biotechnology can provide an unlimited and pure source of enzymes as an alternative to the harsh chemicals traditionally used in industry for accelerating chemical reactions. Enzymes are found in naturally occurring microorganisms, such as bacteria, fungi, and yeast, all of which may or may not be genetically modified.  (We’ll come back to this important point later.)

But what are enzymes?

Enzymes are large protein molecules that  act as  catalysts – substances that start or accelerate chemical reactions without themselves being affected —  and help complex reactions occur everywhere in life.  By their mere presence, and without being consumed in the process, enzymes can speed up chemical processes – reactions occur about a million times faster than they would in the absence of an enzyme. In principle, these reactions could go on forever, but in practice most enzymes have a limited life.   There are many factors that can regulate enzyme activity, including temperature, activators, pH levels, and inhibitors.

Enzymes play a diversified role in many aspects of everyday life including aiding in digestion and the production of food as well as in industrial applications. Enzymes are nature’s catalysts. Humankind has used them for thousands of years to carry out important chemical reactions for making products such as cheese, beer, and wine. Bread and yogurt also owe their flavor and texture to a range of enzyme producing organisms that were domesticated many years ago.

Enzymes are categorized according to the compounds they act upon. Some of the most common include:

•  proteases which break down proteins,
•  cellulases which break down cellulose,
•  lipases which split fats (lipids) into glycerol and fatty acids, and
•  amylases which break down starch into simple sugars.  Human saliva, for example, contains amylase, an enzyme that helps break down starchy foods into sugars.

In textile treatment, the first enzyme applications, as early as 1857, was the use of barley for removal of starchy size from woven fabrics. The first microbial amylases were used in the 1950s for the same desizing process, which today is routinely used by the industry.

Enzymes are now widely used to prepare the fabrics that your clothing, furniture and other household items are made of.  Increasing demands to reduce pollution caused by the textile industry has fueled biotechnological advances that have replaced harsh chemicals with enzymes in many textile manufacturing processes.  The use of enzymes not only make the process less toxic (by substituting enzymatic treatments for harmful chemical treatments) and eco-friendly, they reduce costs associated with the production process, and consumption of natural resources (water, electricity, fuels), while also improving the quality of the final textile product.

But how do they work?

Rader’s Chem4Kids.com website  has a great explanation, which I’ve quoted below:

Think of enzymes as similar to keys which can open locks.  Just as when you need a key that is just the right shape to fit in a particular lock, enzymes complete very specific jobs and do nothing else.  

From: Chem4Kids

 They are very specific locks and the compounds they work with are the special keys. In the same way there are door keys, car keys, and bike-lock keys, there are enzymes for neural cells, intestinal cells, and your saliva.

Here’s the deal: there are four steps in the process of an enzyme working. 

1.  An enzyme and a substrate are in the same area. The substrate is the biological molecule that the enzyme will attack. 
2.  The enzyme grabs onto the substrate with a special area called the active site.  The active site is a specially shaped area of the enzyme that fits around the substrate. The active site is the keyhole of the lock. 
3. A process called catalysis happens. Catalysis is when the substrate is changed. It could be broken down or combined with another molecule to make something new. 
4.  Then the enzyme lets go.  When the enzyme lets go, it returns to normal, ready to do another reaction. But the substrate is no longer the same – the substrate is now called the product.

Next, well take a look at how enzymes are helping to make the textile industry’s environmental footprint a bit more benign.

Green backlash?

I just read an article about “green marketing” and how the manufacturer should downplay the green aspects of a product because “very few Americans have ever bought stuff because they want to
save the planet.”[1]

And I agree that most people just want their stuff, not a sermon.

But when I hear something along the lines of “we love your fabrics, but we’re looking for a particular shade of …” my heart drops – because I realize the speaker does not really believe that his
fabric choices are making a direct impact on him or his clients.   He does not believe that buying a product that pollutes our groundwater, contributes to global warming, contains chemicals which are known to be harmful to humans (and which might well have long term impacts on him), and all too often employs children who should be in school helping us fight the enormous problems we face – well, he doesn’t believe each purchase simply ensures that the same products will continue to be made!

Because what you buy is what gets produced.   It may be a long, circuitous way of making a
personal impact on you, but it happens nevertheless.

Why don’t people recognize this?

Green lifestyle expert Danny Seo says the main reason people choose not to buy green is:  they’re selfish.[2]  If there is not a tangible benefit to wearing organic cotton, or changing to organic bedding, Seo says people literally will not buy into it.  “All you know is that you have done something better for the planet. We are selfish, and want to know what we are getting out of it. That is why something like organic cotton will never work, because there is no direct link to why people should want to do this.”  And unlike a Prius, organic clothing or bedding isn’t something one can point to and use to improve their status – or promote their “greener than thou” lifestyle.

But Danny Seo doesn’t know about textile processing – because that organic cotton, if processed conventionally, contains chemicals – 27% by weight of the fabric to be exact -  which most definitely will allow you to make a direct link to what people are getting out of it – from asthma and allergies to cancers and worse.

To cite just a few examples:

• The American Contact Dermatitis Society has an interesting web
  site for people suffering from formaldehyde resins in fabrics[3],
• studies have found dioxin which leached from clothing – a potent
  carcinogen – on the skin of participants [4]
• and women working in textile factories which produce acrylic
  fibers have seven times the rate of breast cancer as the normal population[5].

Textile processing uses some of the most potent and dangerous chemicals known – and they remain in the fabrics we live with.  This becomes part of the chemical soup we’re all exposed to each day, and which we believe is changing us in many ways, not all for the better.  We don’t just absorb synthetic chemicals one at a time during the day.  We’re exposed to hundreds of chemicals as a result of using a wide array of consumer products, many of which contain the same chemicals as are found in fabrics.  We are exposed to a variety of stressors – and textiles are one of the stressors, among others such as:

• Automotive exhaust
• Cleaning products
• Chemicals in treated water
• Cosmetics
• Environmental pollution
• Food
• Insect repellents
•  Prescription drugs
• solvents
• Ultraviolet radiation

As we absorb tiny amounts of chemicals repeatedly from  multiple sources, they might add up until they reach a tipping point.  Add to this what Drs. Anita and Paul Clement call the “black hole” of ignorance about a key fact in toxicology:  that toxins make each other worse.  “A small dose of mercury that kills 1 in 100 rats and a dose of aluminum that kills 1 in 100 rats, when combined, have a striking effect: all the rats die.“

So how can you, as an individual, change it – how can one person do anything to change the world? Margaret Meade says that committed people, banding together, is the only thing that really
ever has.

The writer Fritjof Capra says that we need to be governed “by a metaphor that says we are part of a continuously evolving and interrelated system”.  We need to start thinking of the world as a system, a cyclical system of interconnections, a web of connections— literally “the web of life.”

And it must be understood that this is a long-term project, not to be mistaken for a marketing trend like one furnishings manufacturer told us. (“Green?” he said. “Yes, well, we did that last year, but we’re doing something really exciting this year!”) In fact, green is only a part of it, a central part that must deal with environmentally benign materials and processes, restoration, recycling, reclaiming:  all those things we have to do to remedy the damage we’ve done to the natural environment and to ourselves in it.

Hope for the future springs from witnessing small reversals of the damage we have caused,  as Victor Papanek says in The Green Imperative.    These times, he says,  also call for a sense of optimism and a willingness to act without full understanding but with a faith in the effect of small individual actions on the global picture.

Remember that each time you purchase something,  you’re ensuring that the product you bought will keep being produced, in the same  way.  If you support new ideas, find creative ways to use something or insist that what you buy meets certain parameters, then new research will be done to
meet consumer demand and new processes will be developed that don’t leave a legacy of destruction.

Lots of people, individually and together, made a difference in the way our foods are grown and processed.  Organic foods went from gnarly to beautiful, and now we’re becoming healthier and our land is being replenished.  It can be done if the individual believes in his own importance, and believes that each purchasing decision is a vote – for clean air and water and safe products – a vote literally for our future.  Or not.

---

[1]
Shelton, Suzanne, “Green Marketing and the Death of Curmudgeonly Contrariness”,
GreenBiz, May 19, 2011.

[2]
Kate Rogers, “Why People Opt Against Going Green”, FOXBusiness, November 4,
2011; http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2011/11/04/why-people-opt-against-going-green/

[3] http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/497713_Tables

[4] “Dioxins and Dioxin-like Persistent Organic Pollutants in Textiles and Chemicals in the
Textile Sector”  Bostjan Krizanec and Alenka Majcen Le Marechal,
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Smetanova 17, SI-2000
Maribor, Slovenia; January 24, 2006

[5]  Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2010,
67:263-269 doi: 10.1136/oem.2009.049817
SEE ALSO:  http://www.breastcancer.org/risk/new_research/20100401b.jsp
AND http://www.medpagetoday.com/Oncology/BreastCancer/19321

The High Cost of Low Prices

It’s the holiday season – and that usually means gifts.  I have begun the annual frenzy  and I’m watching my budget – yet I wince each time I hear an ad for an even cheaper price.  I’m especially worried by the Old Navy ads for really cheap cashmere sweater.  (Click here to read our blog post on cashmere and how it’s affecting our environment.)  My gifts are often jeans or clothing for my three boys, and so the Greenpeace report which was just published on November 30 really hit home.

Greenpeace  investigations found widespread pollution, including high concentrations of heavy metals, in Xintang and Gurao, two textile factory towns in Guangdong province that make blue jeans and bras, respectively.

As the Greenpeace web site   http://www.greenpeace.org/eastasia/press/release/textile-industrial-pollution tells it:

“Xintang is better known as the “Blue Jeans Capital of the World” – over 40% of its jeans are exported to the US, the EU, Russia and many other countries. It produces 260 million pairs of jeans annually, or more than 60% of China’s total jeans production and equivalent to 40% of all the jeans sold in the US each year.

Sewing Jeans These workers are sewing jeans in a makeshift shed that serves as a workshop in Xintang 2010 08/12/2010 © Qiu Bo / Greenpeace

Students on Street These students on their way to school try to block out the fumes from trash incineration Gurao, 06/08/2010 © Qiu Bo / Greenpeace

Meanwhile, 80% of Gurao’s economy is related to the underwear and lingerie industry. Each year, the “Capital of Sexy” produces 200 million bras, enough for one for every third woman in China.

“Xintang and Gurao are symbols of success in China’s export-model economy, yet we were horrified by the environmental degradation we saw during our fieldwork visits from April to September,” said Greenpeace Toxics campaigner Mariah Zhao. “Though we cannot pinpoint the pollution sources definitively at this stage, it’s worth noting that textile is the dominant industry in both towns by a long run.”

Testing by an independent laboratory revealed heavy metals such as copper, cadmium, and lead in 17 out of 21 samples of water and sediment from Xintang and Gurao. One sediment sample from Xintang contained cadmium at concentrations 128 times in excess of national environmental standards. “Dyeing, washing, bleaching, and printing are some of the dirtiest processes in the textile industry, requiring high volumes of water as well as heavy metals and other chemicals,” explained Zhao. “And Xintang is home to the complete blue jean manufacturing process, including dyeing, bleaching, and washing.”

Workers in the industry also testified to Greenpeace. “The water is discharged from the dyeing factories upstream. Sometimes it smells really awful. And every time the color of the water is different,” said Ren Shan (pseudonym), a migrant worker who moved to Gurao for a job in a textile factory.

Worker in GuangDong Every morning, workers at a denim washing factory must search through wastewater to scoop out stones that are washed with the fabric in industrial washing machines to make stonewash denim. Xintang, 08/14/2010 © Qiu Bo / Greenpeace

 

“With China nicknamed ‘the Factory of the World,’ it’s important to remember that Xintang and Gurao are emblematic of the larger problem of dirty textile manufacturing – they are just two of 133 textile industrial clusters in the country,” Zhao pointed out. “The responsibility of wastewater regulation and phasing out hazardous chemicals in textile manufacturing must be faced by not only Xintang and Gurao’s industries and government, but also throughout China.”

“Jeans and bras are synonymous with a modern, sexy lifestyle, yet we need to think about what these fashion icons mean for our environment. With many people demanding new jeans and clothing every year, it is imperative that the textile industry implements clean production methods, starting by phasing out the use and release of hazardous chemicals. At the same time, the government must adopt and enforce strict hazardous chemical management policies,” said Zhao. “We also hope that consumers will join us in pushing for change from the government and their favorite clothing companies. It would be tragic if fashion and economics comes at the cost of China’s clean water resources.” “

While you all ohh and ahhh about the terrible conditions in these Chinese cities– and of the chemicals being dumped into our groundwater – remember what motivates this behavior.  As we (you and I) push for ever lower prices, the factories have no recourse but to cut costs – by paying lower wages, (if wages are paid at all) and ignoring pollution control measures (which are expensive and force the cost up).

It is a simple equation that, if retailers want cheap prices and fast delivery times, they cannot expect high wages and comfortable working hours for the people on the production line, nor can they put in place expensive pollution control measures such as water treatment.

Somewhere there has to be a compromise.  In fact,  Ellen Ruppel Shell, in her book, “Cheap, The High Cost of Discount Culture”, asks: “What are we really buying when we insist on getting stuff as cheaply as possible?”  Her answer:  a low-quality food supply, a ruined economy, a polluted environment, low wages, a shoddy educational system, deserted town centers, ballooning personal debt, and the loss of craftsmanship.

Contact information for Greenpeace:

Shelley Jiang, Greenpeace Media Officer,   +86 1352 089 3941, +86 (10) 6554 6931 ext 149

Mariah Zhao, Greenpeace Toxics Campaigner
+86 1391 009 8563, +86 (10) 6554 6931 ext 107