 | Dr Manic |
Role
Packaging Machinery SupplierIndustry
FoodComments
* indicates an article that was submitted directly to this Web site by the supplier, and was not handled by the Greener Package editorial staff.
Greener Package may share your contact information with our sponsors, as detailed in our Privacy Policy. Greener Package will not share your information with a sponsor whose content you have not reviewed. The members of the Advisory Board and Expert Network do not review, approve or endorse advertisements on this Web site.
Government Leadership?
Over the past four to six decades we have seen environmental politics move from being a conservative/Goldwater cause to being characterized as a leftist/anti-capitalist conspiracy. In 2002 Rush Limbaugh declared "all of the old communists are the new environmentalists"; protecting the environent and government regulation has been demonized as un-American. Right-wing politicians and corporate pundits have succesfully poisoned the "discussion". Why? "I am from the government and I'm here to help you" has misled our nation to the brink of disaster. Characterizing our representational Democracy as the enemy of "We, the people" has allowed some politicians to attain power. Those politicians did not use their power to improve our laws or to correct inefficiencies, but rather, they chose to ignore regulatory enforcement in the guise of "freedom." Whereas, when we look at our environmental regulations we see sound policies that have not only improved our quality of life, but also our economy. It doesn't matter whether we are discussing Mr. Roosevelt's national park system or the more recent laws that reduced acid rain, new industries were created, catastrophies were averted, and more citizens were employed. We currently enjoy new technologies and an improved infrastructure because of environmental regulation. Money talks, however, it doesn't neccessarily say anything intelligent. Those who have turned environmental policies into political battlelines have no interest in practical solutions to current problems. Mr. Oris, do no expect any "leadership" as long as politicians profit from inactivity. The "freedom of speech" lauded by Mitch McConnell belies the representation of corporations that have used the media to drown-out the concerns of our citizenry; it is insane to believe that "the party of NO" is interested in pragmatism,... Perhaps these politicians should look to the far-east before it's too late. The Japanese did not oppose the EPA mandates on auto emissions, etc., but rather, exceeded the regulatory mandates. The Chinese are not waiting to hear the end of debate over Global Warming, but rather, they are capitilizing on it. The manufacturing base of the USA has not been eroded by environmental regulation, but rather, a lack of long-term vision by those who are comfortable with things the way they are. A "smaller government" only serves a decreasing population and a dwindling economy. "Government leadership" requires politicians that are willing to enforce current regulations and develop practical legislation for our current problems. Whereas, protecting our borders, our environment, and our economy means that our government should not be derided as our enemy, but rather, supported as the only institution that is charged with the task of serving "We, the people".
Organic sources for fuel and plastics
It's really interesting how some people speak out against bio-fuels, etc. Typically such arguements either point out how growing corn (for example) earns little return on investment for fuel or speak of the competition for food. Although the statements are true, they can be allayed through wise management of resources. As long as food consumers are not living atop the agriculture fields, the price of food will always be hostage to the price of fuel. However, when foodstuffs are not grown for chattle or human consumption, then some of the cost stressors may be alleviated. The injection mold doesn't care about halal; the car isn't concerned about the ethanol's taste. Sweet potatoes, sorghum, and sugar cane are much better sources for fuel than corn and require fewer resources than corn. However, corn is a much more stable commodity; the grower can expect a return on investment from any number of revenue sources. Thus, the "trick" to make bio-plastics more economical may be to have the industry divorce itself from the food market. When cellulose becomes more valueable and sugars are less important to create hydrocarbons, then farmers can be encouraged to grow without pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers. - Those "amber waves of grain" could be the next gold rush,...
Useful uses, but do you want the liability?
Mr. Lyons, those are super kuhl ideas. But I would be hesitant to offer such suggestions. Unless the materials are rated for insulation or ground aeriation, I wouldn't go there. Although the beads may be less flammable than cellulose and less poisonous than MiracleGro, there is no reason to accept additional risk. However, a good idea should not be kept secret: educational awareness is a safer method. - In contrast to most of the dicussion here, I have been hinting heavily about economics. Our society is constantly dealing with the dilemmas of the latest technology. Like the Sheik with a mouse problem, we are constantly solving problems only to discover new ones. However, employing mice to scare off elephants would be akin to giving up on technology. - It ain't gonna happen,... Biodegradable materials are a submission to consumer laziness and industry ineffectiveness. It appears as a waste of the energies and materials used to make the packaging. However, if the decaying materials do not poison the land, water, or air, then who cares? Recycling is the best solution; however, it requires profit motives to be useful. Local recyclable pick-up programs must have incentives to take-away the materials. Such incentives can go so far as to mine landfills for such materials. What is the engine to drive such economics: The "free market"? In which case, should we depend upon those who sell oil to maintain a ridiculously high price?
It's all about the Benjamins,...
In a better world we would have packaging materials that are wholesome enough to eat. Until then, it all comes down to cost. Compost, fuel, re-use or whatever, it's still garbage in the end. That is, unless the waste stream can be profitable. However, Simpak isn't a charity; they shouldn't be expected to use a more expensive product just so a waste reclaimer can make a better profit. The greenest solution is the one that makes the most money. Simpak will make money by satisfying their customers. It would be nice if Simpak's packagaing could profit whomever disposes of it. It's not going to recycle itself and no-one's going to do it for free. Thus it appears that Simpak's choice comes down to its waste stream. Can anyone reply by describing Simpak's choices, which should include where they can compost, liquefy, burn, shred&process, etc.
Until our reality changes, the dollar will rule,...
Any discussion of recycling or biodegrading materials must make reference to the disposal stream being used. The expenses of the production/disposal are part of the overall cost of product transport. The least expensive technique will determine the package's end-of-life as long as money is involved. Re-useable containers, as employed for taking food to the packager, can enjoy the luxury of being made of more valueable materials. However, consumer products (such as microwaveable dinners and soda-pop) compete where fractions of a cent make a difference; this polution stream may always be petroleum based and destined for landfills. Almost 100% of plastic pallets can be recycled; whereas, John Q. Public is still free to toss his Evian bottle out of the window. Perhaps it is time to bring up Cap and Trade: The energy industry is eagerly awaiting such legislation; they oppose EPA involvement. One can see how Lincoln Conn Edison would rather pay to liquefy plastic waste that to create carbon sequestering techniques. Although fossil-based carbon would still be emitted, it would reduce the overall use of petroleum and provide direction for evolving economies. Any discussion of starch-based plastics becomes clouded as long as the carbon source competes with food consumption. Like petroleum, food grains are subject to market price; as the glaciers recede, that market will become more volatile. Hence, these products should be grown from agriculture dedicated to their use. Corn, etc. that is due for human consumption, which includes feed grain, must be maintained in a clean product stream. Molds, vermin, pesticides, etc. can only be tolerated in extremely small amounts. Whereas, when being processed for ethanol, etc. these grains can be rotten. Lastly, because of simpler production requirements, grain-based plastics or fuels could be cheaper to produce than they are currently.
What's the Point?
Recycled vs. Bio-degradable - Is that our choice? Is one the enemy of the other?
Dean is correct: Redesign for eco-effectiveness!
Packaging materials are thought of as disposible, so the discussion centers on "disposing." The end consumer is not forced to recycle or dispose of properly. Hence, there is no real control of where the materials will end-up. Recycling is the best, first choice. Plastics can be reduced to oil (as in Washington State), recovered for the core of new packages, or become raw fuel. However, if the materials do not enter into a recycling stream, then they may end up in one of the garbage islands riding the high seas (perhaps a new eco-system?). Thus, being bio-degradeable allows the package to "die" quietly without becoming a lasting reminder. As long as the byproducts do not contaminate water or food supplies then no-one should oppose such materials. As to landfills: Has anyone read about the recent activity of T. Boone Pickens? - He's buying 'em up,... Remember his push for methane as a transporation fuel? Guess where 1/3 of available copper is hiding? Maybe landfills are just another step in recycling?
Seriously? I mean, Oh
Seriously? I mean, Oh REALLY? Doesn't that kinda' trivialize the term "dangerous." I can see it now: "Who cut the cheese? We'll have make a report on a dangerous emission. Call the hazmat team and cordon off the area."
Jeff: So being proactive and
Jeff: So being proactive and using technology to prevent a potential calamity is "living like cavemen"? -LOL -> I wonder what Og, son of Fire, would say? ("OUCH - fire hot") Although your statement "Real pollution is different than climate change" is somehow a refutation of my postings, it appears that you recognize our many successes; we have engineered our way out of many previous dilemmas. The "difference" that you are inferring is whether humankind has a part in climate change; as if our polution has no impact. However, when one sees the U.S. at night from forty thousand feet, it is pretty hard to deny that we can affect the planet. - -> You say "balance is the key in life", but fail to achieve equilibrium. A balanced opinion would recognize both sides of the issue and consider their implications. However, when you call the majority of research a hoax, you lose all credibility. The point being that "balance" requires seeing both sides and seeking an equitible resolution. - "Therefore, make peace with your God, whatever you perceive him to be - hairy thunderer or cosmic muffin. With all of its hopes, promises, and urban renewal, the world continues to deteriorate. - give up!"- from Deteriorata by Christopher Guest
NucEngineer doth protest too
NucEngineer doth protest too much! -> Although neither poster has been accused of being "paid off by the petroleum industry", their extreme reactions betray them. - Unlike the (im)posters "NucEngineer" and Jeff, I have yet to claim any position on climate change other than to say it is possible. -- That is, I have talked to experts (one had correctly predicted how Jupiter would react to a recent impact) and have read a bit, but since I am just a mere Mechanical Engineer, I will not be so bold as to accuse published academicians of participating in a conspiracy to destroy capitalism. -> That is your thesis, isn't it Jeff and Gary? You two would have this audience believe that the receding glaciers are a normal event that humans have not contributed to. We should all continue to buy big trucks and ignore the Rhode Island sized icebergs departing from Antarctica. Gary and Jeff want us all to continue being good consumers and ignore their political agendas. -> Did I get that right? The two belied their cause by making money their main topic. As was the case with acid rain or smog, we were told that smoke scrubbers and air injection pumps would be too great of a burden for the U.S. consumer. However, we now know the consequences of imposing sensible regulations: an improved quality of life. --- Gary demonstrates his ignorance of natural events. In a world where "glacial" is synonymous with slow, he/she would have us ignore recent rapid changes in the ice sheets. Moreover, the poster makes the false statement that a natural event, like the Gulf Current, cannot change abruptly. However, the history of this planet is riddled with sudden and yet unexplained changes. ---- After accusing Nobel Prize winners of conspiracy (not just Mr. Gore), they call me "clueless"! -LOL These posters want us to believe that researchers have joined into a communist cabal that is bent on destroying WHO? ----- Let me see,... What are my choices again? -> Believing the majority of published scientists or the tirades of Rush? -> Being concerned about the rapidly decaying glaciers or that the commies are out to get me? -> Making certain that my progeny have a life worth living -> or that MobileExxon's profit margins are maintained?