Bioplastics are a type of plastic made from renewable biomass sources, such as vegetable fats and oils, corn starch, pea starch, or microbiota. They are an alternative to traditional plastics, which are made from non-renewable fossil fuels. Bioplastics can be biodegradable or non-biodegradable, and their properties can vary depending on the specific material and manufacturing process used. Some bioplastics can biodegrade completely in industrial composting facilities, while others require specific conditions to break down. Since bioplastics are plant-based products, the consumption of petroleum for the production of plastic is expected to decrease by 15–20% by 2025.

Types of Bio-plastics

Bioplastics are a promising alternative to traditional plastics, offering a more sustainable and environmentally friendly solution for a wide range of applications. There are two main types of bioplastics that are commonly used: PLA and PHA.

• PLA, or polylactic acid, is made from the sugars in corn starch, cassava, or sugarcane. This biodegradable plastic is carbon-neutral and edible, making it a versatile and eco-friendly option for a variety of products. To create PLA, corn kernels are broken down into starch, protein, and fiber through a process of immersion in sulfur dioxide and hot water. The starch is then mixed with citric acids to form a long-chain polymer, which can be shaped and molded into various forms. Companies like NatureWorks produce PLA under the brand name Ingeo, which can look and behave like traditional plastics such as polyethylene or polystyrene.
• PHA, or polyhydroxyalkanoate, is made by microorganisms that produce plastic from organic materials. This biodegradable plastic is often used in medical applications such as sutures, slings, bone plates, and skin substitutes due to its compatibility with living tissue. PHA is made by depriving the microorganisms of nutrients like nitrogen, oxygen, and phosphorus, while giving them high levels of carbon. The microbes produce PHA as a carbon reserve, which they store in granules until they have more of the other nutrients they need to grow and reproduce. The resulting PHA has a chemical structure similar to traditional plastics and can be used for single-use food packaging as well.

The global bioplastic market is projected to grow from $17 billion in 2021 to almost $44 billion in 2022. As companies and consumers alike become more aware of the environmental impact of traditional plastics, bioplastics offer a promising solution for a more sustainable future.

Complexities of Bio-plastics:

The use of bioplastics has been touted as a solution to the problem of plastic pollution, but the reality is much more complicated. Despite the best intentions of consumers and small businesses, the issue of bioplastics is not as straightforward as it may seem.

One of the main issues with bioplastics is that they are often marketed as compostable or biodegradable, leading consumers to believe that they will simply break down in the environment. However, the reality is that bioplastics require specific conditions in order to decompose, and may not be suitable for all composting systems. In fact, compostable plastic takeaway packaging was not designed to be the solution to plastic pollution, but rather to prevent food waste from being contaminated with plastic packaging. Small businesses that have made the switch to bioplastic alternatives have also faced challenges, including higher costs and difficulties finding suitable suppliers. Despite these challenges, many businesses are committed to finding more sustainable solutions and reducing their impact on the environment.

Another issue with bioplastics is the lack of clear regulations and standards. There is no universal definition of what constitutes a bioplastic, and some products may be marketed as biodegradable or compostable without meeting specific criteria. This can lead to confusion among consumers and businesses, and make it difficult to ensure that bioplastics are being used in a sustainable and responsible way. Ultimately, the issue of bioplastics is a complex one that requires a nuanced approach. While bioplastics offer the potential for a more sustainable future, it is important to recognize that they are not a panacea for the problem of plastic pollution. Consumers and businesses must educate themselves about the true impact of bioplastics, and work together to find solutions that are both environmentally responsible and economically viable.

Bio-plastics VS Plastics – Which is the better choice ?

Bioplastics are made from renewable resources such as corn starch, sugarcane, and vegetable fats and oils, while traditional plastic is made from non-renewable fossil fuels like petroleum. Bioplastics are also free from harmful chemicals like bisphenols (BPA) or other endocrine-disrupting toxins that can be found in traditional plastic. In terms of environmental impact, bioplastics have several advantages. They generate fewer emissions during production compared to traditional plastic, and they can be composted by industrial facilities, which is an environmentally beneficial way of disposing of waste. This compost can then be used as a resource for growing more plants, creating a circular economy. On the other hand, traditional plastics often end up in landfill or incinerated, contributing to greenhouse gas emissions and pollution. Additionally, the recycling rates for traditional plastics are low, and there are concerns about the safety of recycled plastic for food packaging.

However, there are also some drawbacks to bioplastics. Some types of bioplastics require specific conditions, such as high temperature and pressure, to break down properly. If not disposed of correctly, bioplastics can also contaminate recycling streams, as consumers may mistake compostable bioplastic for recyclable plastic. Furthermore, bioplastics can be more expensive to produce, which can be a burden to the consumer. Ultimately, the choice between bioplastics and traditional plastics depends on the specific application and the end-of-life considerations. While bioplastics have several advantages, there are also limitations and challenges that need to be addressed. As consumers, we can make a difference by choosing to reduce our use of single-use plastics altogether and opt for more sustainable alternatives.

Side Effects

A 2010 study from the University of Pittsburgh compared seven traditional plastics, four bioplastics, and one made from both fossil fuel and renewable sources. The researchers found that bioplastics production resulted in greater amounts of pollutants compared to traditional plastics. This is due to the fertilizers and pesticides used in growing the crops used to make bioplastics and the chemical processing needed to turn organic material into plastic. The bioplastics also contributed more to ozone depletion than the traditional plastics, and required extensive land use.

One hybrid plastic, B-PET, was found to have the highest potential for toxic effects on ecosystems and the most carcinogens, and scored the worst in the life cycle analysis because it combined the negative impacts of both agriculture and chemical processing. Despite these negative impacts, bioplastics do produce significantly fewer greenhouse gas emissions than traditional plastics over their lifetime. There is no net increase in carbon dioxide when they break down because the plants that bioplastics are made from absorbed that same amount of carbon dioxide as they grew. A 2017 study determined that switching from traditional plastic to corn-based PLA would cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent. The study also concluded that if traditional plastics were produced using renewable energy sources, greenhouse gas emissions could be reduced by 50 to 75 percent. However, bioplastics that might be produced with renewable energy showed the most promise for substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In summary, while bioplastics are a promising alternative to traditional plastics, their production still has some negative side effects that need to be taken into consideration. It is important to continue researching and developing sustainable materials that have the potential to reduce our carbon footprint and minimize harm to the environment.

As many countries around the world celebrate their progressive efforts to reduce plastic pollution by banning single-use plastic bags, a new challenge emerges, and it’s literally out of this world. The problem of space debris has taken center stage, and it’s not just a small issue. Thanks to our brilliant minds, we now have tons of plastic waste orbiting our planet, a problem that’s not only a sight for sore eyes but also has the potential to bring space missions to their knees.

Space debris refers to man-made objects in space that are no longer in use or have lost contact with the ground. This can include spent rocket stages, defunct satellites, fragments from explosions or collisions, and other objects that have been abandoned or lost in space. A significant amount of space debris is situated within low Earth orbit, which is approximately 2,000 km (1,200 miles) from Earth’s surface. Although some debris can also be located in the geostationary orbit, situated 35,786 km (22,236 miles) above the Equator. According to the United States Space Surveillance Network’s data, as of 2021, they have recorded over 15,000 fragments of space debris that are larger than 10 cm (4 inches) across. However, it is believed that there are roughly 200,000 pieces that measure between 1 and 10 cm (0.4 and 4 inches) across, with potentially millions of smaller pieces. The time it takes for space debris to fall back to Earth is based on its altitude, with objects orbiting below 600 km (375 miles) taking several years to re-enter the Earth’s atmosphere, while those above 1,000 km (600 miles) can orbit for centuries.

Plastic, which is ubiquitous in our everyday lives, has become a significant part of space debris. With the advent of technology and the growing use of plastic in various fields, space exploration has seen an increase in plastic waste, which has contributed to the already growing issue of space debris. Plastic waste, when left in space, poses a significant threat to current and future space missions. The plastic waste in space debris takes longer to degrade than on Earth, and its persistence in space can lead to collisions with other man-made objects or even asteroids. Such collisions create more debris, which, in turn, poses a threat to space missions, astronauts, and even satellites that we depend on for communication and weather monitoring. The consequences of space debris and plastics are far-reaching and potentially catastrophic. The International Space Station (ISS), which orbits Earth at approximately 400 km (250 miles) above its surface, has been hit by debris several times, requiring repairs to ensure the safety of the crew. This serves as a stark reminder of the dangers that space debris poses.

What is being done ?

The reality is that despite our efforts to address the problem of space debris, we are actually creating more waste than we are able to remove. You don’t have to take my word for it, just take a look at the evidence here:

Although the image shown in the link may exaggerate the size of the space debris, it serves to illustrate the severity of the problem. The challenge we face is that the debris can be as small as a screw, making it nearly impossible to collect and dispose of properly. International cooperation is important in addressing the problem of space debris. The United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) has developed guidelines and recommendations for the mitigation of space debris, and space agencies from different countries are working together to monitor and track debris to minimize the risk of collisions. Here are some strategies being used to address the situation:

• Active debris removal: There are a few companies like Astroscale and Clearspace that are working on developing technologies to capture and remove large pieces of debris from orbit.
• Deorbit sails: NASA has developed a deorbit sail, which is a thin sheet of material that can be attached to a defunct satellite or other large piece of debris to increase atmospheric drag and bring it back to Earth faster.
• RemoveDEBRIS : The RemoveDEBRIS project is a research initiative funded by the European Union to develop and test innovative technologies for removing space debris from orbit. The RemoveDEBRIS spacecraft was launched in 2018 and demonstrated four key technologies for space debris removal: a net to capture debris, a harpoon to pierce and capture debris, a vision-based navigation system to track and approach debris, and a drag sail to de-orbit the spacecraft and any captured debris. The spacecraft successfully captured and deorbited two cubesats during its mission. Here’s a very interesting video to the same :

What problem does Plastic pose ?

The ubiquitous presence of plastic waste in our environment is a problem that goes beyond the physical clutter it creates. Even in space, plastic debris poses a significant chemical threat to the atmosphere through a process called photodegradation. When plastic encounters UV radiation from the sun, it undergoes a breakdown process that fragments the polymer chains into smaller and smaller pieces. These fragments can then react with other chemicals in the atmosphere to form new compounds, some of which can be detrimental to human health and the environment.

One example of this is when plastic fragments react with ozone in the atmosphere, producing highly reactive hydroxyl radicals that can contribute to the breakdown of other atmospheric pollutants like methane and carbon monoxide. While these reactions may also produce less harmful compounds, such as organic acids, the overall impact of plastic on the atmosphere remains a significant concern.

In fact, experts such as Ekaterini Kavvada, directorate general of Defence Industry and Space at the European Commission, have raised the alarm about the mass of plastic waste in space. Specifically, the lower orbit of Earth has been likened to a “drifting island of plastic” due to the sheer volume of plastic debris present. This highlights the urgency of addressing the problem of plastic waste, not just on Earth but also in space, to protect our planet and its inhabitants.

Innovative Solutions for the Future

These futuristic solutions include projects such as ESA’s e.Deorbit mission, Astroscale’s ELSA-d mission, and JAXA’s KITE project.

• ESA’s e.Deorbit mission: This project aims to capture and remove a large defunct satellite from orbit using a robotic system. The satellite will be captured and then de-orbited into the Earth’s atmosphere, where it will burn up upon re-entry.

• Astroscale’s End-of-Life Services by Astroscale-demonstration (ELSA-d) mission: This project involves deploying a spacecraft that will use a magnetic docking mechanism to remove defunct satellites from orbit. The spacecraft will capture and then de-orbit the satellite, allowing it to burn up upon re-entry.

• Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency’s (JAXA) Kounotori Integrated Tether Experiment (KITE): This project involves using a tether to de-orbit space debris. A small satellite will deploy a 700-meter tether, which will be used to capture and de-orbit space debris.

Microplastics are extremely tiny fragments of plastic waste having a diameter smaller than five millimeters. Professor of Marine Biology and Director of the University’s Marine Institute Richard Thompson was the first to identify their long-term accumulation and coin the term “microplastics” in his seminal study, “Lost at Sea: Where Is All the Plastic?,” published in 2004. Microplastics can be found in a variety of places, including bigger plastic waste that breaks down into ever-tinier fragments. Moreover, microbeads, a subset of microplastic, are little bits of synthetic polyethylene plastic that are added as exfoliants to several toothpastes and cleansers in the health and beauty industry. These minute particles are so small that they can easily get through water filtering systems and wind up in the Great Lakes and ocean, potentially endangering aquatic life.

Tourism is also jeopardized by debris and rubbish seen on the beach. Tourists obviously do not want to sunbathe close to empty Coke bottles and plastic blags flying about their faces. If a beach becomes increasingly polluted, fewer people are likely to visit it and contribute to the economy. According to a 1988 study, “as a result of marine debris washing ashore, New Jersey lost between $379 million and $3.6 billion in tourism and other earnings.” Furthermore, a lot of money is spent on cleaning up beaches and contaminated areas.

The Environmental Working Group, an environmental non-profit, conducted an analysis in 2022 and discovered that sewage sludge had contaminated nearly 20 million acres of US cropland with (PFAS), also known as “forever chemicals” because they are frequently found in plastic products and do not decompose under normal environmental conditions. When municipal wastewater has been cleansed, sewage sludge is what is left over. Sludge is frequently used as organic fertilizer in Europe due to its high nutrient content and pricey disposal. According to a Cardiff University study, as a result of this practice, European agriculture may be the largest global repository of microplastics.

Moreover, food crops might be directly harmed by plastic particles. A 2020 study in Italy discovered microplastics and nanoplastics in produce purchased from local vendors as well as in supermarket-purchased fruit and vegetables. Carrots had the greatest concentrations of microplastics among the studied vegetables, and apples were the most polluted fruit.

The existence of microplastics in fish, earthworms, and other species is disturbing, but the true danger occurs when microplastics linger—especially if they travel from the gut into the circulation and other organs. Physical harm, such as inflammation, has been detected by scientists as a result of particles jabbing and rubbing against organ walls. Researchers have also discovered evidence that ingested microplastics can leach dangerous compounds, including those added to polymers during production as well as ambient contaminants such as pesticides that are attracted to the surface of plastic, causing health effects such as liver damage.

Yet, because the issue is already quite significant, it is difficult to predict how it will be resolved because there are so many variables to take into account. We can’t possibly remove the plastic granules produced by the biomagnification process or clean up smaller fragments from something as large as the ocean. But nevertheless, we can at least make an effort to stop this problem from occurring.

Can Plastic Ban actually save us from the inevitable disaster?

A kid wakes up in the morning hoping for something new to happen. He walks out of his slum, grabs his thela (cart), and heads for the landfills. When the city produces 10,000 tons of garbage every day, that kid is one of the 200,000 ragpickers who work at the filth mountain. They face the methane and other dangerous compounds from the decomposing waste, wild canines, sickness, and the foul stink to recycle nearly a fifth of the city’s rubbish despite not being recognized as sanitation workers.

Consider doing all of that for 500 rupees, or $7 per day. Even that sad apology for a living is about to vanish as India prepares to implement a ban on single-use plastics, which are used to make items such as earbuds, lollipop sticks, polystyrene packets, plates, cups, spoons, packaging wraps, cigarette packs, and stirrers, among other items of daily use that populate our lives, beginning July 1.

But will avoiding Plastic actually help solve the problem? According to the Ministry of Environment in India, Forest, and Climate Change, it will no longer be possible to manufacture, import, stock, distribute, sell, or use these single-use plastic items because they have “poor utility and high littering potential.” Penalties can range from a $1,000 fine to a maximum of five years in prison. The country’s 50,000 plastic manufacturing facilities—the majority of which are small and medium-sized businesses that collectively employ approximately 400,000 people—as well as consumer corporations that rely on plastic for their products have a much more positive perspective, albeit it is still frightening. Leading beverage manufacturers, for instance, have been lobbying with the government to delay the ban because they are finding it difficult to replace the plastic straws that come with their drink goods. Single use plastic is a type of disposable plastic found in items like water bottles, straws, cups, and other items that can only be used once before being thrown away. Due of their affordability, companies are more likely to produce single-use plastics.

Placing a ban on plastics may have both favorable and unfavorable effects. The reduction of single-use plastics, which results in less plastic entering the environment, is one of the ban’s beneficial effects. Another benefit is the chance to switch to more ecologically friendly alternatives that are more readily available and more reasonably priced. This is important. Bans may be followed by enforcement measures, which may cost money from the relevant authorities, or they may result in the extension of the ban to include imports of certain products. If single-use plastics are prohibited but there are no practical alternatives, there is a chance that illegal markets will develop.

We should be wary of options that claim to be recyclable or reusable. Typically, these alternatives are compostable or biodegradable in industrial facilities at extremely high temperatures that are difficult to achieve in normal environments. Furthermore, because they are not plastic, they cannot be recycled, and placing them in the wrong waste stream (for example, with recyclable items) can distort the composting process by sending all recyclable items to landfill space instead of just grouping out all the non-recyclable item.

The largest change we would have to make, even if the plastic ban is successful, would be to reexamine our disposable society. We would have to alter not only how we consume goods like food and clothing but also how they are produced like phones and washing machines. Instead of making things compatible and more standardized so that they may be replaced and repaired, we’re too ready to acquire something cheap and disposable. That ideology has to be changed.

“We’re just clones, sir. We’re meant to be expendable.” – Sinker

The concept of the legions of clone troopers that comprised the Grand Army of the Republic in Star Wars was one of the strongest aspects of the plot. Given that the Separatist army’s ranks were stocked with interchangeable hunks of trash, it’s not surprising that the clones thought themselves expendable. They were designed to be fighters.

Cloning is a method that scientists employ to create perfect genetic replicas of living creatures. Cloning can be used to duplicate anything from genes to cells to tissues to entire animals.  It became plausible to imagine producing hundreds of cloned human children in the very near future after Ian Wilmut and his colleagues at the Roslin Institute in Scotland, near Edinburgh, successfully created Dolly the sheep from a ewe’s mammary cells in 1996. However, no human has yet been cloned. This is due in part to the difficulty of creating a viable clone. Genetic errors that prevent the clone from surviving can occur during each attempt. To get Dolly correctly, scientists made 276 attempts.

Gene cloning, reproductive cloning, and therapeutic cloning are the three basic types of cloning. Gene cloning is the process of making duplicates of genes or DNA segments. Reproductive cloning makes full animal replicas. Embryonic stem cells are created during therapeutic cloning. In order to repair damaged or unhealthy tissues in the human body, researchers want to employ these cells to generate new, healthy tissue. What benefits do we actually gain by cloning organisms with minimal genetic mistake, even if we do succeed in doing so? Some people would have the ability to truly resuscitate their dead relatives or even create new humans, while others are able to bring back to life their deceased pets or dead humans. The first cloned animal as a pet was a cat named CC in 2001. Cloning has the potential to revive extinct animals like the giant panda and woolly mammoth in the future.

But, if all of that is feasible, should it be implemented? Should it be done if all of these great things can become a reality? To my understanding, it is still not possible to clone an exact copy of you. But even if there is a slim likelihood of that happening, should it happen. No, in my opinion. Just because you have a weapon does not imply you should use it. There are these unlimited possibilities with the problem of clones in the future, and one thing is certain: we never know if they turn out evil or nice. Another reason is that you are influencing someone’s cognitive process, robbing him of the beauty of the human mind without his knowledge, because the majority of the objections against cloning are based on the absence of unique nuclear DNA in the child’s genome. A society in which genetic selection is conceivable would place a greater focus on each person’s or household’s socioeconomic means. Those who could afford cloning would effectively form their own class, while those who couldn’t would be rejected or ignored by the rest of society.

But, once again, there is a positive aspect to this. Cloned embryos can be transformed into stem cell factories. Stem cells are a sort of early cell that can develop into a variety of cells and tissues. They can be transformed into nerve cells to repair a damaged spinal cord or insulin-producing cells to cure diabetes.

I would want to claim that because of the writings of scientists, bioethicists, and other experts (mainly through journalists quoting those experts), people have come to understand that clones would not be particularly unique. They would never be an exact replica of a person who is or was alive. Even while I’d like to believe it, I have my doubts. In recent years, the idea that people listen to experts has not fared well. Cloning’s advantages and disadvantages show that, even if the research may be conducted ethically, societal repercussions still need to be taken into account. We cannot plan for all the unknowns that exist. On one’s health, there could be both favorable and unfavorable impacts.