EnviroStewardship: Just One Word. Polyethyleneterephalates

It's that time of the month again! Here's the column my dad, John Berge, writes on environmental stewardship for his church's monthly newsletter.

Plastics have been much in the news over recent years, generally in a negative way. Huge areas of the oceans are covered with waste plastics. Canada rightfully complains of the plastic trash washed down from the Great Lakes through “their” St. Lawrence River. New plastic bottles are being made from recycled plastics picked up on the resort beaches of Mexico. Micro-plastic beads from cosmetic products are washed into the lakes and eaten by fish which in turn are eaten by us, where they may or may not get past the lining of our intestines.

But first some definitions: Plastic, as an adjective, describes a material that can be molded or shaped into a desired form. Plastics, as a noun, refers to synthetic (man-made) polymers (long chains of the same small monomers, or groups of atoms) such as polyethylene, polyethyleneterephalate, polystyrene, or polyvinyl chloride. These are molded or extruded to form such varied products as automobile parts, toothbrush handles, vanes on wind turbines, communion cups, fibers, films and the ubiquitous, obnoxious, single-use bottles and bags polluting the environment.

Before I go any further, I must confess to being one of those people who helped push plastics onto the scene. Years ago, I worked in a huge nylon plant and was one of the first dozen technical people on the development of Dacron® (that polysyllabic plastic above); you may be wearing one or the other of these synthetic “plastic” fibers or walking on them in your home or office. I also did some research on the fibers that are used in bullet-proof vests protecting our police and armed forces. My doctoral research was on the dynamic mechanical properties of long side-chain methacrylate polymers (non-commercialized plastics). I did turn down a job offer to do research on the manufacture of plastic bags, but that was for other reasons.

For convenience and sanitation, our church lines its waste baskets and bins with single-use plastic bags, including the bin for the recycling of the single-use polystyrene communion cups. These bags do get a second usage in our kitchen waste basket. I have recently picked up some “Compostable Kitchen Bags” for the recycling bin, but they only claim “100% certified compostable … in municipal or commercial compost facilities.” I have faith that they will also compost eventually in the landfill after our two usages.

I also have faith that, after this and earlier discussions in these essays, our congregation and every member will try their best to differentiate in their purchase, use and disposal practices between single-use plastic items and those products which in the long run are beneficial because of their light weight, long-term stability and other properties.

Reusable items such as tote bags for groceries and refillable water or coffee containers are much preferable to single-use items, even if you are careful to recycle the latter. Lighter weight plastics allow for larger wind turbine blades and thus can provide more renewable energy; they also yield lighter, more fuel-efficient automobiles. Even foamed plastics around our homes can improve insulation and reduce energy needs. Replacing lead pipes with PVC can protect our children and improve our health.

Good environmental stewardship requires some forethought before plastic items are purchased, disposed or recycled.

Environmental Stewardship: Seven Deadly Sins

I give the blog over today to my dad, John Berge, for the "Environmental Stewardship" column he writes for his church newsletter.

In one of those strange conversations on the golf course that I sometimes find myself, a Catholic friend and I were discussing how many of the seven deadly sins we have observed on various golf courses. While several were often observed, the main sin was against one of the ten commandments — taking the Lord’s name in vain.

But it made me think of how many of the seven deadly sins are encountered when we discuss environmental stewardship. I must admit that in my biased opinion, I see them mostly in the deniers and opponents of environmental regulations and policies.

To refresh the memories of my readers, the seven deadly, or cardinal, sins are generally listed as: Lust, Gluttony, Greed, Sloth, Wrath, Envy and Pride. The most obvious is probably Greed. The profit motive is very strong in this country and often turns into Greed. Any regulations to protect the air, water and land, or the habitat of an endangered or threatened species, that might increase the costs of some business or reduce their profit are automatically opposed. Surely, under our system of economics profits are necessary or products are not produced, but when the top few percent of people own more than all the rest combined, Greed is the motive and the driving force of this disparity.

Wherever there is successful Greed, there follows Envy. There are few things that destroy our environment more quickly than crimes based on Envy of the haves by the have-nots. And when weapons of mass destruction are in the hands of the envious have-nots, then Wrath is in the center of the horrible images on our TV screens. Crime and environmental stewardship may not often share the same paragraph, but what kind of environment is it for human beings who are afraid to go out the door without a gun, when arson leaves ashes of our homes and jobs, and when so called white-collar crimes take from the poor what little savings they may have?

Sloth probably follows next. Is it too much work to recycle aluminum cans and plastic bottles which litter our roadsides, parks and public areas? Driving everywhere instead of walking or biking is often the easy way out. Isn’t it Sloth that keeps us from contacting our public officials urging them to do the right thing for the environment and social justice? (I was tempted to write “our environment,” but as so many have said, natural resources, air, water and land, open natural areas and crowded cities are not ours. We have just borrowed them from our children and future generations.)

Pride sits on the shoulders or consciences of both sides of the divide concerning the environment. Both are sure they are right and the other side just doesn’t understand. Global warming or climate change is an excellent example of this prideful disagreement. Is it a hoax, or are the data sufficient for any discussion? Is a coal miner’s job more or less important than a child’s asthma? Are oil company profits more or less important than an elderly couple dying of heat exhaustion?

One must always be careful not to mix up weather and climate, but this summer’s weather here in Southeast Wisconsin and around the world might finally convince some deniers. Is it the Environmental Protection Agency or the Environmental Polluters Agency? Does our Pride say it is all the fault of the government or are we ready to accept our own responsibilities?

As a scientist and a churchman, my friends know where I stand. And I am not alone.

Trashy Racine Post Cartoon

Here's a local issue cartoon I drew for The Racine Post today. There's a story on the site reporting that the new recycling bins delivered to Racine residents this month have computer chips in them to monitor the sort of use they're getting. Racine being a place where people who don't like any kind of change are quite willing to speak up about it, the bins had already stirred up a hornets' nest even before folks found out that the bins were monitoring their garbage for the gummint.

If the cartoon looks a little different from my usual style, it's because it was drawn primarily with felt marker instead of quill pen. I had hoped that a new pen would still have a sharp enough edge to enable some degree of detail; unfortunately, for that I had to resort to ballpoint pen -- a medium I gave up decades ago on the very wise advice of Bill Sanders, then cartoonist for The Milwaukee Journal.

I have been having a hard time finding the kind of india ink I like these days. I was happy with Winsor & Newton, but the local art stores now only sell it in the packs of multicolor inks; and you may have noticed that I don't use colored ink. I tried Speedball Super Black next, and it was okay... but it has also gone missing at the local art stores. I am very disappointed with Dr. Ph. Martin's Black Star, which is, as far as I'm concerned, gray. It's darker than #2 pencil, but not by enough for my tastes.