Vidic 2:00
L10
PETRO-PLASTICS VS. BIO-PLASTICS: AN ETHICAL COMPARISON
Shane Snyder (sds75@pitt.edu)
CHEAP PLASTIC: AT WHAT COST?
Ever since the end of World War II, two important
American industries have become irreversibly married. This
marriage between the plastics and oil industries is still very
strong even today [1]. This is because plastic manufacturers
purchase various hydrocarbons from oil companies to use as
cheap, available precursor for their products. Unfortunately,
these “petro-plastics” contribute greatly to polluting the
environment and are rarely recycled. In addition, the
fabrication of this starting material and the drilling of crude
oil often pollutes the area around the production site
damaging flora and fauna through toxic runoff and waste.
Luckily, there is an alternative. Biodegradable and bio-based
plastics can fill this role without the baggage of pollution or
the need to recycle. Any chemical engineer who is designing
a polymer production system must make the ethical decision
between biologically-derived product and product made from
cheaper, petroleum-based synthetic precursor.
PITFALLS OF PETRO-PLASTICS
To thoroughly establish the moral supremacy of bioplastics, all of the issues involved with petro-plastics must be
brought to attention. The first and most prevalent is the
problem of pollution.
ONE-USE CULTURE
One of the greatest reasons for our widespread plastic
pollution stems from disposable consumer goods and a
“throw-away culture.” One would reason that it makes no
sense to produce items that quickly become trash once they
lose their usefulness. So why do we still produce these things?
The answer to this seems to be the cause of most problems in
the world these days. And this answer is profits. Why would
companies develop sturdy reusable products when they can
make cheaper, one-use wares and make more money? For
example, if someone buys an expensive zippo lighter, from
then on they only need to buy more fuel when it is empty. On
the other hand, if they buy a cheaper Bic lighter, once the fuel
runs out they have to come back and buy a brand new lighter.
This makes them a consistent, reliable customer for Bic.
These companies would much rather sell 20 disposable
lighters that cost them very little to make than sell one more
expensive lighter that costs more to produce. It is all about
manufacturing a need for the consumer to come back. This
kind of practice has been prevalent since the 1960s and has
induced serious consequences. These consequences are
exemplified by a particular location in the Pacific Ocean
University of Pittsburgh, Swanson School of Engineering
2013-10-29
known as the North Pacific Gyre. This swirling system of
currents has become the final resting place of huge amounts
of petro-plastic waste that ended up in the Pacific. The area,
considered to be twice the size of Texas, has become known
as the “Great Pacific Garbage Patch” and consists of a soup
of trillions of little pieces of plastic that have been broken
down by the sunlight and saltwater [2]. This kind of change
in the ocean impacts marine life greatly interrupting the entire
ecosystem. The Vice documentary, “Garbage Island: An
Ocean Full of Plastic” displays a scientific voyage to the
legendary area of ocean for further research. Captain Charles
Moore, the leader of the expedition and the one who originally
discovered the patch in 1997, states that a sample taken near
the gyre is, “Probably a thousand to one,” in terms of the ratio
of plastic particles compared to plankton [3]. Scientific
studies of this synthetic anomaly use this measure to
determine how heavily polluted a particular spot in the ocean
is. This quantity also gauges how much plastic sea life
consumes when attempting to feed on the plankton, a natural
food source of the ocean. Mass consumption of plastic by
these creatures leads to ramifications throughout the
ecosystem which directly violate the National Society of
Professional Engineers’ (NSPE) code of ethics. It states,
“Engineers are encouraged to adhere to the principles of
sustainable development in order to protect the environment
for future generations” [4]. Clearly, suffocating the ocean life
with plastic is the exact opposite of protecting the
environment as well as being an unsustainable practice. If the
ocean continues to be adulterated with our synthetic waste,
we may reach a point of no return where the ecosystem is
permanently damaged by these compounds (that is if we have
not reached that point already).
THE FAILURE OF RECYCLING
Often people advocate recycling as a solution for the
pollution caused by petro-plastics and there is some credence
to this idea. The issue here is that recycling has failed.
According to the Environmental Protection Agency, only 8%
of the plastic waste generated in 2011 was recycled [5]. This
means that 92% of the waste generated in that year ended up
in the environment. No matter what recycling initiatives are
introduced, it is highly unlikely that 100% of these plastics
will ever be recycled. Therefore, some waste will inevitably
spend decades or centuries breaking down into smaller and
smaller particles which easily enter the ecosystem and often
infiltrate food chains [6]. This is because historically plastics
have been engineered to be durable and resist decomposition.
Designing polymers in this manner is very shortsighted and
breaks one of the canons of the American Institute of
Chemical Engineers’ code of ethics. The code states that
Shane Snyder
members shall, “Hold paramount the safety, health, and
welfare of the public and protect the environment in
performance of their professional duties” [7]. Clearly, the
usefulness of these plastics and the profits to be had by their
sale are being held above the welfare of the public and the
environment. This “mess” of high molecular weight
compounds are often toxic to wildlife including animals that
many people eat. Of course they are also toxic to us.
materials back to the ecosystem in a carbon-neutral process.
In this way, PHAs and other bio-based polymers are
inherently biodegradable. They represent a more long term
and sustainable strategy to plastic production than petroleumbased precursor. Therefore it is also more ethical. A research
paper written by Edmond Byrne, a professor in the
Department of Processing and Chemical Engineering at
University College Cork in Cork, Ireland, asserts, “There are
two ways to kill any living thing. One is to do something that
causes acute harm; the other is to remove or destroy the
supporting environment and allow the living thing to perish.
Similarly, engineers can destroy or alter environments that
support the global ecosystem and in such manner kill future
humans on a global scale. Clearly, the moral responsibilities
of engineers must include commitments for providing a high
quality and sustainable environment for future generations”
[9]. What Byrne is saying is that sustainable design ensures
the safety of future generations of humans. Looking at the
issue of sustainability in this way coincides with the ethical
theory of utilitarianism. According to an article written by
Masaru Yonehara, an academic at Shizuoka University in
Japan, utilitarianism describes a moral action as one that
“Brings about the greatest balance of happiness over
unhappiness for everyone affected by the action; otherwise, it
is wrong” [10]. Byrne’s assessment of ensuring the safety of
future humans by sustainable engineering aligns with the idea
of finding a pragmatic balance where future suffering is
minimized.
TOXIC TO US
Many synthetic polymer additives and plasticizers can
“leach” out of the molecular structure that holds individual
plastic monomers; escaping into the environment as well as
consumer products enclosed in polymer containers. These
additives are often drawn out of the polymer complex by
lipids, as many are highly fat-soluble. Phthalates and many
other polymer building blocks have been shown to be
“endocrine disruptors.” Some of these monomers end up in
our bodies and can interfere with natural processes by
blocking hormone receptors. One such case is bisphenol-A, a
monomer of polycarbonate, which has been used in water
bottles and other household items. BPA is mentioned in Susan
Freinkel’s book, Plastic: A Toxic Love Story. She writes,
“Scientists have known since the 1930s that bisphenol-A acts
as a weak estrogen [in the body]” [6]. The molecule bonds to
receptor sites and can block stronger natural estrogen
molecules, interfering with normal bodily activity. Many
other common monomers such as PVC (polyvinyl chloride)
are carcinogenic. Any engineer who, with knowledge of these
health hazards, still chooses to produce these dangerous petroplastics is indisputably acting in an unethical manner. Both
the NSPE and AIChE codes of ethics have a clause stating
verbatim that their engineers must, “Hold paramount the
safety, health, and welfare of the public” [4&7]. When
engineers fail to live up to the expectations of their code in
this way, the public’s safety, health, and welfare are not being
properly protected.
ROLE OF HUMANITY IN NATURE
The ethical theory of utilitarianism is, of course, not the
only way to frame the ethical dilemma of choosing between
petro-based and bio-based plastics. The dilemma itself can
also be framed differently as one of unsustainable practice
versus sustainable practice. One author, Christian Becker,
likes to outline the issue in terms of a different ethical theory:
that of virtue ethics. This philosophy abides by the notion that
suffering is caused by human imperfection and therefore the
best way to minimize suffering is through human excellence.
Excellence is to be achieved by embodying certain character
virtues. The book Virtue Ethics by Nafsika Athanassoulis
claims Aristotle’s (one of the originators of this theory)
definition of virtue as, “…moral goodness, moral excellence”
[11]. What is meant by moral excellence is a balance in certain
character traits. For example, being cowardly is considered
immoral, but exhibiting the trait of complete recklessness is
just as problematic. Being courageous is the logical middle to
the two extremes and would be considered superior to both.
In the case of plastics and sustainability, Becker discusses
“environmental virtues.” He states that attentiveness to nature
is one these virtues and leads to a respect towards nature [12].
Needless to say, respecting nature includes not polluting it
with millions of tons of synthetic petro-plastics and this is
where bio-plastics come in. When these plastics biodegrade
they return carbon back into the environment in a similar way
BIO-PLASTICS: A SUITABLE
ALTERNATIVE
In recent years developments have been made in the
production of plastic by biological means. Some materials
have been developed and tested for their unique quality of
being able to be hydrolyzed by certain bacteria through the
use of a class of enzymes known as esterases. These enzymes
help facilitate a reaction which breaks the ester linkages
between individual molecular units. A couple examples of
these materials are polylactic acid and multiple different
polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs) [8]. The latter are actually
produced by bacteria as a way to store energy (similar to
animals storing energy as fat). As these materials are
originally produced by bacteria, they can subsequently be
eaten and broken down by bacteria returning the starting
2
Shane Snyder
to the natural carbon cycle. In addition, they do not support
oil extraction companies in their production. Petro-plastics on
the other hand provide profits to oil companies which pollute
themselves on top of the carbon dioxide (a greenhouse gas)
that is generated when their hydrocarbon products are burned.
REFERENCES
[1] A. Tullo. (September 9, 2013). “Plastic Planet.” Chemical
&
Engineering
News.
(Online
article).
http://cen.acs.org/articles/91/i36/Plastic-Planet.html
[2] L. Blomberg. (2011). “The Great Pacific Garbage Patch.”
E- The Environmental Magazine. (Magazine article). Vol.22,
Issue 3, pp. 8
[3] Moore, Charles. (September 6, 2012). “Garbage Island:
An Ocean Full of Plastic.” Vice. (Online Documentary).
http://www.vice.com/toxic/toxic-garbage-island-1-of-3
[4] (July 2007). “Code of Ethics for Engineers.” National
Society of Professional Engineers. (Online document).
http://www.nspe.org/resources/pdfs/Ethics/CodeofEthics/Co
de-2007-July.pdf
[5] (2013). “Plastics.” Environmental Protection Agency.
(Website).
http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/materials/plastics.htm
[6] S. Freinkel. (2011). “Plastic: A Toxic Love Story.” New
York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. (Print book). pp. 81139
[7] “Code of Ethics.” American Institute of Chemical
Engineers.
(Online
document).
http://www.aiche.org/about/code-ethics
[8] A. Tullo. (March 19, 2012). “Old Plastics, Fresh Dirt.”
Chemical & Engineering News. (Online Article).
[9] E. Byrne. (2012). “Teaching Engineering Ethics with
Sustainability as Context.” International Journal of
Sustainability in Higher Education. (Online research paper).
Vol.13, Issue 3, pp.232 – 248
[10] M. Yonehara. (March 2012). “Utilitarianism and Rawls.”
Bulletin of the Faculty of Education, Shizuoka University.
Social and natural sciences and liberal arts series. (Online
Journal Article). Vol.62, pp. 51-58
[11] N. Athanassoulis. (2013). “Virtue Ethics.” New York,
NY: Bloomsbury Academic. (eBook). pp.61-66
[12] C. Becker. (2012). “Sustainability Ethics and
Sustainability Research.” New York, NY: Springer. (eBook).
pp.67-82
[13] (October 28, 2013). “Energy & Oil Prices.” Bloomberg.
(Website). http://www.bloomberg.com/energy/
TAKING THE MORAL HIGH GROUND
In order to ethically evaluate this choice between using
petroleum formulations or biologically derived compounds
for plastics, all of the pros and cons for each must be laid out
and measured. It makes sense to first mention petro-plastics
one and only advantage. This is, of course, in the area of cost.
Despite the common complaints about gas prices, petroleum
is still very inexpensive. Crude oil only costs about $100 per
barrel [13]. For a barrel full of useful organic molecules, this
is extremely cheap. This means that the chemical derivatives
that are sold to plastic manufactures are also relatively cheap.
Although, this will likely change in the future as oil becomes
more scarce and hence more pricey. Next comes the issue of
pollution. Petro-plastics are very stable, long-lasting
compounds. This becomes problematic when they are
discarded. Nature cannot recycle them in a reasonable
timeframe leading to massive pollution demonstrated by the
Great Pacific Garbage Patch as well as the plastic debris
visible on any beach. Bio-plastics, on the other hand,
biodegrade when discarded returning their nutrients back to
the ecosystem in a natural way. Another point of comparison
between the two approaches exists in the way they relate to
the oil industry and sustainability in the bigger picture. By
providing profits to oil companies, petro-plastics support the
infrastructure of the oil industry as a whole; itself being
unsustainable. The future of the industry relies on the idea that
there is unlimited oil to be extracted from the world which is
simply false. Fossil fuels take millions of years to materialize;
a rate which will never be matched by the rate we currently
extricate them. The industry is practically the definition of
unsustainable. Bio-plastics do not rely on this ticking time
bomb of uncertainty and do not support it financially. Lastly,
the matter of human health must be brought up. Petro-plastics
contain dangerous additives and plasticizers (plus the
monomers of the polymer themselves) that often leach out of
the molecular complex and into the surroundings. Many of
these compounds such as bisphenol-A and polyvinyl chloride
are known to cause detriment to humans that have been
exposed. PHAs, which are biologically produced, do not
require these additives in their production. When these
consequences are totaled, the moral front-runner is apparent.
The ethical benefits of bio-plastics far outweigh the
comparatively diminutive cost advantage of petroleum based
plastics.
3