Author Archives: David Evans

Carpet is made mostly of plastic fibers derived from oil and accounts for about 1 percent of the U.S. waste stream, according to the EPA. The vast majority ends up in landfills or gets burned for energy. | Edwin Remsberg/Getty Images

A national nonprofit that runs state programs designed to promote recycling of used carpet is trying to prevent more of them from forming.
The industry-run group Carpet America Recovery Effort kicked two members off of its board earlier this spring for supporting New York and Illinois bills that would create recycling programs similar to California’s, which it helps run. The state proposals would put a tax on new carpets and distribute the proceeds to collection and recycling companies to turn discarded material into other marketable products.

Carpet recycling companies like the programs because they make recycling economic, but manufacturers argue that the extra fees — about 35 cents per yard in California — make their products less competitive with other types of flooring.

The episode illustrates the tensions that emerge when an industry group regulates itself. How large a role industry should play relative to regulators has been a sticking point as states try to enact extended producer responsibility laws for carpets, packaging and other products.
“CARE can’t come to terms with its own contradictions,” said Franco Rossi, president of Aquafil USA Inc., which recovers nylon from old carpets. Rossi was booted from CARE’s board in late April, along with the president of another recycling company. “The carpet industry runs the stewardship program in California because they have to, but they don’t want it anywhere else because they think it will hurt carpet sales.”
After recyclers advocated for the New York and Illinois bills, CARE leadership said they had violated the group’s conflict of interest policy. The group’s executive director, Bob Peoples, said in an email that states are best served by market-based solutions, “not by mandating unrealistic and arbitrary targets.”
Recycling supporters say the dust-up points to the need for more accountability and enforcement mechanisms in legislation that gives industry control over recycling.
“This is not just about carpet. When industries control recycling programs, and there aren’t enough guardrails, things can go very wrong,” said Heidi Sanborn, executive director of the National Stewardship Action Council, which advocates for legislation to require manufacturers to take responsibility for their products’ full lifecycles.
CARE was set up in 2002 as part of a partnership with the EPA, states and environmental groups. Its memorandum of understanding expired in 2012 and wasn’t renewed. The group also runs a voluntary, nationwide recycling program that includes a directory of collectors, recyclers and guidelines that it says have helped divert more than 5 billion pounds of carpet from landfills. But it stopped giving out industry-funded incentives in 2020, and recyclers say it’s not very active.
“For more than a decade, CARE has pretended they’re going to find a market-based solution,” said Louis Renbaum, president of DC Foam Recycle Inc., the other board member who was terminated. “But we’re dealing with a low-value product that has little chance of being recycled without subsidies.”
Carpet is made mostly of plastic fibers derived from oil and accounts for about 1 percent of the U.S. waste stream, according to the EPA. The vast majority ends up in landfills or gets burned for energy.
In California, carpet recycling rates are about 28 percent — far above the national average of 9 percent in 2018, the latest figure available. But the program’s performance has been uneven, with CARE paying more than $1 million in penalties for failing to improve rates from 2013-16. It again failed to meet its target of 24 percent in 2020.
CARE also required companies that accepted its incentives to refrain from supporting legislation that would require manufacturers to manage products’ lifecycles. Recipients of recycling funding had to attest that they would support “voluntary market-driven solutions” and not “legislation or regulations” creating extended producer responsibility requirements for 18 months after receiving funding, according to a copy of an agreement reviewed by POLITICO.
California regulators said they were worried about the group’s stance and what it means for carpet recycling. “I am very concerned about CARE’s ability to operate as a product stewardship organization if their main tenet is opposing EPR,” said Rachel Machi Wagoner, director of CalRecycle, the state’s waste management agency. “I don’t know what politics are happening within the organization, in terms of picking winners and losers, but their job is to build a circular system for carpet recycling.”
The carpet industry is also lobbying against the bills. The Carpet and Rug Institute, which has an overlapping membership with CARE, urged Illinois lawmakers to oppose the carpet-recycling proposal, arguing that it was “modeled on a problematic California program” and would create “an entirely new state bureaucracy.” CRI also pointed to CARE’s voluntary program as an alternative, arguing that it diverts carpets from landfills “without any additional taxation of consumers.”
CRI President Joe Yarbrough, who also serves on CARE’s board, said mandatory carpet stewardship legislation leads to a “death spiral”: The cost of carpet increases, which in turn slows sales, reducing how much carpet is ripped out of homes and commercial buildings to be recycled.
The Illinois bill failed to advance, but the New York bill has passed both houses; Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) could sign it later this year.

Car tyres produce vastly more particle pollution than exhausts, tests showToxic particles from tyre wear almost 2,000 times worse than from exhausts as weight of cars increases Almost 2,000 times more particle pollution is produced by tyre wear than is pumped out of the exhausts of modern cars, tests have shown.The tyre particles pollute air, water and soil and contain a wide range of toxic organic compounds, including known carcinogens, the analysts say, suggesting tyre pollution could rapidly become a major issue for regulators.Air pollution causes millions of early deaths a year globally. The requirement for better filters has meant particle emissions from tailpipes in developed countries are now much lower in new cars, with those in Europe far below the legal limit. However, the increasing weight of cars means more particles are being thrown off by tyres as they wear on the road.The tests also revealed that tyres produce more than 1tn ultrafine particles for each kilometre driven, meaning particles smaller than 23 nanometres. These are also emitted from exhausts and are of special concern to health, as their size means they can enter organs via the bloodstream. Particles below 23nm are hard to measure and are not currently regulated in either the EU or US.“Tyres are rapidly eclipsing the tailpipe as a major source of emissions from vehicles,” said Nick Molden, at Emissions Analytics, the leading independent emissions testing company that did the research. “Tailpipes are now so clean for pollutants that, if you were starting out afresh, you wouldn’t even bother regulating them.”Tyres produce far more particles than exhausts in modern carsMolden said an initial estimate of tyre particle emissions prompted the new work. “We came to a bewildering amount of material being released into the environment – 300,000 tonnes of tyre rubber in the UK and US, just from cars and vans every year.”There are currently no regulations on the wear rate of tyres and little regulation on the chemicals they contain. Emissions Analytics has now determined the chemicals present in 250 different types of tyres, which are usually made from synthetic rubber, derived from crude oil. “There are hundreds and hundreds of chemicals, many of which are carcinogenic,” Molden said. “When you multiply it by the total wear rates, you get to some very staggering figures as to what’s being released.”The wear rate of different tyre brands varied substantially and the toxic chemical content varied even more, he said, showing low-cost changes were feasible to cut their environmental impact.“You could do a lot by eliminating the most toxic tyres,” he said. “It’s not about stopping people driving, or having to invent completely different new tyres. If you could eliminate the worst half, and maybe bring them in line with the best in class, you can make a massive difference. But at the moment, there’s no regulatory tool, there’s no surveillance.” The tests of tyre wear were done on 14 different brands using a Mercedes C-Class driven normally on the road, with some tested over their full lifetime. High-precision scales measured the weight lost by the tyres and a sampling system that collects particles behind the tyres while driving assessed the mass, number and size of particles, down to 6nm. The real-world exhaust emissions were measured across four petrol SUVs, the most popular new cars today, using models from 2019 and 2020.Used tyres produced 36 milligrams of particles each kilometre, 1,850 times higher than the 0.02 mg/km average from the exhausts. A very aggressive – though legal – driving style sent particle emissions soaring, to 5,760 mg/km.Far more small particles are produced by the tyres than large ones. This means that while the vast majority of the particles by number are small enough to become airborne and contribute to air pollution, these represent only 11% of the particles by weight. Nonetheless, tyres still produce hundreds of times more airborne particles by weight than the exhausts.Sign up to First Edition, our free daily newsletter – every weekday morning at 7am BSTThe average weight of all cars has been increasing. But there has been particular debate over whether battery electric vehicles (BEVs), which are heavier than conventional cars and can have greater wheel torque, may lead to more tyre particles being produced. Molden said it would depend on driving style, with gentle EV drivers producing fewer particles than fossil-fuelled cars driven badly, though on average he expected slightly higher tyre particles from BEVs.Dr James Tate, at the University of Leeds’ Institute for Transport Studies in the UK, said the tyre test results were credible. “But it is very important to note that BEVs are becoming lighter very fast,” he said. “By 2024-25 we expect BEVs and [fossil-fuelled] city cars will have comparable weights. Only high-end, large BEVs with high capacity batteries will weigh more.”Other recent research has suggested tyre particles are a major source of the microplastics polluting the oceans. A specific chemical used in tyres has been linked to salmon deaths in the US and California proposed a ban this month.“The US is more advanced in their thinking about [the impacts of tyre particles],” said Molden. “The European Union is behind the curve. Overall, it’s early days, but this could be a big issue.”TopicsPollutionRoad transportPlasticsAir pollutionMotoringnewsReuse this content

On today’s episode of the Mongabay Newscast we look at Indigenous peoples’ long relationship with, and stewardship of, marine environments through two stories of aquaculture practice and research.Nicola MacDonald joins us to discuss Kōhanga Kūtai, a project in New Zealand that aims to replace the plastic ropes used by mussel farmers with more sustainable alternatives. MacDonald discusses the project’s blending of traditional Maori knowledge with Western science.We also speak with Dana Lepofsky, a professor in the archaeology department at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, Canada, who shares her research upon clam gardens along the Pacific coast of North America. Some of these clam gardens have been found to be at least 3,500 years old, and were such a reliable and sustainable source of food that there’s a movement afoot to rebuild them today. On this episode we discuss Indigenous peoples’ long relationship with — and stewardship of — marine environments through the lens of aquaculture.
Listen here:

Coastal cultures have often enjoyed abundant lifestyles thanks to the wide array of food, fiber, and other useful resources provided by the world’s seas, sounds, estuaries and oceans. Indigenous peoples have also developed strong marine conservation traditions and ingenious methods of ensuring sustainable long-term harvests through practices commonly called ‘aquaculture’ today.
We hear from Nicola MacDonald about Kōhanga Kūtai, a project in New Zealand that aims to replace the plastic ropes used by mussel farmers with more sustainable alternatives. MacDonald tells us about her community’s marine conservation ethic and the mussel project’s basis in blending traditional Maori knowledge with Western science.
We also speak with Dana Lepofsky, a professor in the archaeology department at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, Canada. Lepofsky tells us about her research into clam gardens on the Pacific coast of North America, some of which have been found to be 3,500 years old, or older. These clam gardens were such a reliable and sustainable source of food that there’s a movement afoot to rebuild them today.
Further reading:
• “‘We have a full pharmacopoeia of plants’: Q&A with Māori researcher Nicola Macdonald” (18 March 2022)
• The Clam Garden Network website
• Smith, N. F., Lepofsky, D., Toniello, G., Holmes, K., Wilson, L., Neudorf, C. M., & Roberts, C. (2019). 3500 years of shellfish mariculture on the Northwest Coast of North America. PloS one, 14(2), e0211194. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0211194
Nicola Macdonald, a Māori researcher and chief executive of the Ngāti Manuhiri Settlement Trust. Image courtesy of Nicola Macdonald.
Ancient clam garden. Image courtesy of John Harper/Clam Garden Network.
Subscribe to the Mongabay Newscast wherever you get your podcasts from! You can also listen to all episodes here on the Mongabay website. Or you can download our app for Apple and Android devices to gain fingertip access to new shows and all our previous episodes.
Harakeke muka [extracted fibers] which have been prepared for weaving into rope. Image courtesy of Nicola Macdonald.
Further listening on this topic: On episode #137 Dune Lankard of Native Conservancy discussed their kelp aquaculture project in Alaska:
• “Podcast: Kelp, condors and Indigenous conservation”

Green-lipped mussels are endemic to New Zealand and are commonly grown in aquaculture operations. Image courtesy of Adrian Midgley via Flickr (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0).
Follow host Mike Gaworecki on Twitter: @mikeg2001
FEEDBACK: Use this form to send a message to the author of this post. If you want to post a public comment, you can do that at the bottom of the page.
See related coverage here at Mongabay:
Indigenous oyster fisheries were ‘fundamentally different’: Q&A with researcher Marco Hatch

Animals, Aquaculture, Climate Change And Food, Conservation, Environment, Farming, Food, Indigenous Communities, Indigenous Cultures, Indigenous Groups, Indigenous Peoples, Marine Animals, Marine Conservation, Microplastics, Oceans, Plastic, Podcast, Research, Wildlife
Print

In March, the United Nations’ Environment Assembly adopted a landmark resolution, supported by 175 countries, to end plastic pollution with a legally binding treaty. Negotiations, expected to take two years, began this week. As a group of nine international experts on plastic pollution from eight countries, we’ve recently argued in a letter to the journal Science that this treaty must cap plastic production and regulate the chemicals they contain. Here’s why.

Plastic impacts on future generations

In the past 100 years, humanity has introduced an immense amount and variety of new chemicals and plastics to the planet. The current global plastic production is roughly 450 million tons per year. If we add up all the plastics produced so far, their weight would surpass the mass of all land and marine animals. Annual production is predicted to double by 2045, when today’s preschoolers are adults. They will likely live in a world of fragile ecosystems and a changing climate. If plastic pollution continues unabated, it will exacerbate these problems.

Plastics are now found in oceans, rivers, lakes, air, ice and soil. Scientists have identified tiny pieces of plastics in the human digestive system, blood stream, lungs and even the placenta. While we do not fully understand the impacts of this exposure, these findings are highly concerning. Chemical additives used in plastics include BPA, flame retardants, phthalates and thousands of other chemicals, many of which are toxic and have been linked to cancer, infertility, brain damage and other serious human health conditions.
Plastics and chemicals have already altered vital Earth’s system processes to an extent that exceeds the threshold under which humanity can safely develop and thrive in the future. Plastics contain tens of thousands of chemical additives, as well as non-intentionally added substances. It’s impossible to ensure the safety of this large variety of substances, mixed in a myriad of different ways.

Plastic’s climate change impacts 

The life cycle of plastic also has serious climate impacts. It accounts for 4.5% of the annual greenhouse gas emissions and could consume 10% to 13% of our remaining carbon dioxide budget by 2050. This is in part because single-use plastics are heavily produced in countries dependent on coal.As the world shifts to renewable energy sources, the fossil fuel industry is looking to increase plastics production. Plastic producers have been expanding their capacities by up to 40%, with $180 billion invested in fracking (which produces ethylene, a critical ingredient in various plastics), and in plastic production.There are many other, yet largely unexplored ways in which plastics could impact the Earth’s system. They could affect the amount of sunlight reflected back to space in the Arctic. Or they could change the carbon dioxide sequestration by phytoplankton and the marine carbon pump, which is part of the ocean carbon cycle responsible for cycling of organic matter formed by phytoplankton during photosynthesis. Plastics could also alter essential nutrient cycling functions of soils on land.

“Wish cycling” 

It is clear that we need to reduce plastics now. We cannot afford to become yet more dependent on historically flawed and insufficient strategies of downstream waste management.Even high-income countries are ill-equipped to keep pace with the growing amount of waste. Recycling is often just “wish-cycling,” as environmental sociologist Rebecca Altman puts it. Recycling rates are as low as 5% in the United States and average only 9% globally. Sometimes recycling is simply a global redistribution of waste. Millions of tons of plastic waste are still exported from the Global North to the Global South. The toxic waste of these exports frequently ends up disposed of by vulnerable communities, who carry the burden of pollution. Scholars have identified this as a form of colonialism.The idea of a circular economy hasn’t worked in practice and would be difficult to implement on the large scale needed. Yet the steep increase in plastic production isn’t challenged enough. As a result, more and more plastics and toxic compounds are leaking into all corners of the environment and into our bodies.Unfortunately, this isn’t a mess we can clean up later. Breaking down into micro and nanoparticles, it’s a form of pollution that is irretrievable and irreversible. Trying to sift it up is a Sisyphean task that might endanger crucial ecosystems, such as the neuston – tiny organisms floating with ocean currents to areas where plastic waste accumulates.

Phasing out virgin plastics

Recycling rates are as low as 5% in the United States and average only 9% globally. (Credit: Lisa Risager/flickr) Even when applying all political and technological solutions available today — including substitution, improved recycling, waste management and circularity — annual plastic emissions to the environment can only be cut by 79% over 20 years, a study of scenarios in the journal Science found. It also suggests that, even with these actions, after 2040 17.3 million tons of plastic waste will still be released to the environment yearly. The path forward must include a phase-out of virgin plastic production by 2040.In calling for a production cap, we do not discount the benefits that plastics present in healthcare or transportation. We are mindful of the possibilities that plastics engender in low-income countries or for disability communities. We do not envision a future without plastics, but one with much less of it, just for the applications that are necessary or vital for vulnerable populations. For all remaining plastics we need a robust circular economy that regulates toxic plastic chemicals as well, keeping them out of the loop to ensure human and environmental safety. A reduced production of new plastics would likely boost the value of recycled feedstock, incentivizing recycling. If justly regulated, this would secure socioeconomic benefits and operational safety for millions of workers across the world, who draw a living removing and renewing plastic waste. The new plastic treaty could create opportunities for innovation in technology, society, science and policy-making — bringing together citizens, scientists, industry and governments alike. We hope that it will be strong, binding and creative, bravely tackling the true roots of the issue.This article is a collaborative work of the authors together, find their bios here.Banner photo: Celebrating the UN resolution on plastic, which passed in March 2022. (Credit: UNEP)From Your Site ArticlesRelated Articles Around the Web