User submission

64.9K

Coca-Cola And Carlsberg Introduce Plant-Based Bottles That Degrade In A Year

Disposal of plastic bottles is a huge contributor to the global climate crisis. In a world that is currently making 300 million tons of plastic from fossil fuels annually, we are desperate to have alternatives, and the Dutch company Avantium might have a solution for us. With the backing of major companies such as Coca-Cola, Carlsberg, and Danone, it is developing a plant-based plastic that could replace the plastic used in the food supply chain.

More info: Avantium

Coca-Cola and Carlsberg have joined forces to back Dutch biochemical company Avantium, which is developing new plant-based plastic

Image credits: piqsels

The Dutch company Avantium seeks to reduce the market’s reliance on fossil fuels by developing fully plant-based plastic. The new plastic-like material it has developed is made from corn, wheat, and beet sugars.

This material made from plant sugars would completely decompose within a year in a composter

Coca-Cola And Carlsberg Introduce Plant-Based Bottles That Degrade In A Year

Image credits: carlsberg

“This plastic has very attractive sustainability credentials because it uses no fossil fuels and can be recycled—but would also degrade in nature much faster than normal plastics do,” Avantium’s chief executive, Tom Van Aken, said to The Guardian.

The new plant-based bottles will dissolve in a few years if left outside in normal conditions

Coca-Cola And Carlsberg Introduce Plant-Based Bottles That Degrade In A Year

Image credits: Marco Verch

That could make a major change in the world since plastic pollution is a major issue nowadays and it keeps growing. Plastic bottles and pieces of microplastic can be found on every single beach in the world and are affecting sea life.

This plastic is considered a very attractive alternative, since no fossil fuels are involved in the manufacturing process

Coca-Cola And Carlsberg Introduce Plant-Based Bottles That Degrade In A Year

Image credits: avantium_

Back in 1950, a global population of 2.5 billion produced approximately 1.5 million tons of plastic. However, by 2016, a population of more than seven billion produced more than 320 million tons of plastic. This figure is expected keep growing and double by 2034. Therefore, any effort to reduce plastic production is vital.

It is hoped that beverages in these bottles will hit the shelves by 2023

Myriam Shingleton, Carlsberg’s vice president of group development, stated that the company aims to innovate all of its packaging formats: ”We are pleased with the progress we’ve made on the Green Fiber Bottle so far. While we are not completely there yet, the two prototypes are an important step towards realizing our ultimate ambition of bringing this breakthrough to market.”

Initially, the project will manufacture a relatively low 5,000 tons of plant-based plastic a year

Coca-Cola And Carlsberg Introduce Plant-Based Bottles That Degrade In A Year

“Innovation takes time and we will continue to collaborate with leading experts in order to overcome remaining technical challenges, just as we did with our plastic-reducing Snap Pack,” she continued.

The plant-based plastic will be made using sugar from corn, wheat, and beets

Coca-Cola And Carlsberg Introduce Plant-Based Bottles That Degrade In A Year

Image credits: paperflare

65Kviews

Incurable book lover and thinker, Marvel geek and social media enthusiast with a Bachelor's Degree In Creative Communication. Will write everything about anything as long as it brings joy to pandas all over the world.

Read less »

What do you think ?

POST

CbusResident 4 years ago

Here's hoping this works well, BUT an important quibble: there will still be complex chains of serious ecological impacts. For starters, this new material can't really involve no use of fossil fuels if it's made from crops like corn, wheat and beets. Those crops, to be grown and harvested at scale, already consume billions of gallons of oil, and billions of gallons of water. If many farms of the near future would have to grow even more of those crops for this, (plus we're still using a lot of farming to also feed people) that may mean even more farming needs to be done. How will more farming get done in the places w/ very fertile land, like Brazil? Maybe by Brazilians cutting down more of their rainforests so that the land can grow crops. (See 'Asian Palm Oil' plantations if you want to face palm over this sort of thing). So, big improvements to the status quo are possible, but we need to think carefully about tradeoffs and each step that would be involved in the proposed changes.

16points

Lisa 4 years ago

Thought the exact same thing - exchanging one evil for a (only possibly) lesser evil...

6points

Load More Replies...

Up All Night 4 years ago

It's like the biofuel debate again.

5points

Tonja Myers 4 years ago

For me, I am just glad that there will be less plastics in the ocean. If this reduces that, I call it a big win. And it composts back into soil that can be used to grow the crops that produce it.

4points

CbusResident 4 years ago (edited)

A similar point to consider: 'Solar power! We want solar power now!!!!....' Well maybe. Solar cells (aka photo voltaic cells), to be created at scale, require (among many other things) industrial-scale amounts of silicon and some rare earth metals. The production of those inputs in and of themselves causes some forms of pollution and ecological problems. It may still be true that it's worth the ecological tradeoff, worth the pollution from mining rare earth metals to have a cleaner source of electricity (and possibly the energy that will make our cars go). And there's a major point to consider in that equation: the solar cell, once made, can be continuously operated w/ minimal ecological cost, whereas, say the power plant that runs on coal, oil or natural gas cannot - you have to keep polluting a lot more to keep using those. So that's a huge difference if you consider the fact that the power source will be continuously used for decades after it's created. But let's remember that nothing in the area of ecological reforms is really a simple, cut and dried, cost-free tradeoff, even in ecological terms alone (that is, to say nothing of considerations around labor standards, econ. impacts, other ethical concerns).

2points

Christina Uhlir 4 years ago (edited)

CbusResident, you mentioned "...we're still using a lot of farming to also feed people..." For your information, only 20% of all crops planted go to feed people, the rest - 80% is used to feed billions upon the billions of farm animals, slaughtered to cater to human insatiable appetite for meat!!! This is the reason for deforestation; animal agriculture is a major contributor to our planet's most significant threats, greater than industrial and car/avian pollution combined. Yes, "we" need to think carefully, what "we" do NOT need is to meat ourselves out of existence!! You mentioned how much water is used to produce crops, here is something to think about: gallons of water it takes to produce one pound of: -potatoes: 34; - oranges: 61; - rice: 299; - tofu: 302; - beef: 2,500!!!! The crops "...already consume billions of gallons of oil....." ???? Really? I didn't know oil is needed to grow plants, can you explain ??

0points

Dl B 4 years ago

They decompose "under normal conditions". Landfill is not a normal condition. Things buried deep in landfills without oxygen do not decompose.

11points

CP 4 years ago

That is a good point!

3points

Load More Replies...

Marc Schmandin 4 years ago

As long as it is not using plants that would otherwise be used for food, its a good step. From what I read elsewhere, it was using sugars from wheat. No idea if that is used in food production. Otherwise we have the similar issue as we did with biofuels, where its more valuable to grow those than food. Then there is the question of soil nutrition and our decreasing lack of nitrogen, plus the impact of fertilisers and pesticides.

7points

Load More Comments

POST

CbusResident 4 years ago

16points

Lisa 4 years ago

Thought the exact same thing - exchanging one evil for a (only possibly) lesser evil...

6points

Load More Replies...

Up All Night 4 years ago

It's like the biofuel debate again.

5points

Tonja Myers 4 years ago

For me, I am just glad that there will be less plastics in the ocean. If this reduces that, I call it a big win. And it composts back into soil that can be used to grow the crops that produce it.

4points