Q+A With Matt Seaholm, President & CEO and Patrick Krieger, Vice President, Sustainability, Plastics Industry Association
The nonwovens industry faces a huge challenge to transition from non-sustainable product applications to responsibly sourced eco-friendly products that contribute to the health of the planet, as well as to the benefit of consumers who depend on these products in their daily life.
International Fiber Journal interviewed with Matt Seaholm, President and CEO of the Plastics Industry Association (PLASTICS), as well as Patrick Krieger, Vice President of Sustainability, on the issue of PCR in Nonwovens – including the research and development, trends, roadblocks, potential, and successes, and the collaborations between industries that increase the circularity factor in nonwovens to produce real change. Here is what they had to say.
International Fiber Journal: Explain how PLASTICS is aligning with other industries to tackle the plastics problem in general? What are some current initiatives that you are spearheading of note?
Matt Seaholm: Plastics are a part of every industry. If we think about how plastic is woven into all the supply chains of every manufacturing sector, it’s important for us to work across a variety of industries to ultimately keep more plastic in the economy and out of the environment.
One example of how we’re working across the value chain right now is our recently announced Flexible Film Recycling Alliance. This initiative is about working with retailers, environmental NGOs, brands, manufacturers, and that includes parts of supply chain of the plastics industry to make sure that we are increasing recycling rates for all plastics, including flexible plastics.
IFJ: What is your position on plastics and circularity? How do you see the plastics industry in general collaborating with its customers to improve environmental effects of plastics?
Seaholm: Circularity is about the value capture of plastic waste. If waste is more valuable because it’s in demand and because it’s easy to recycle, less of it will go into the environment and more of it will stay in the economy. We can work to improve the recyclability of the product, but we also need to make sure that consumers help us get more of that plastic back, and that sometimes comes in the form of education or deposits. We must make sure that the value is there in the plastic waste so that it stays in the economy and doesn’t end up in the environment or a landfill.
IFJ: How do you imagine or believe that nonwovens producers can partner with the PLASTICS and industry to achieve greater good for the future? How is your organization shepherding those kinds of efforts?
Seaholm: First, there needs to be an echo chamber for the value of plastic. We all have a desire to end plastic pollution, and we all know the value that plastic plays in society, from health to safety to stable supply chains. Across the board, plastic is a wonderful material as long as it stays out of the environment. We need to work together to tout its benefits and work hard to keep more of it out of the environment. In addition, I would stress innovative solutions as a key responsibility of the industry. Any manufacturer of any plastic product should be innovating new and exciting manufacturing techniques and different materials. For example, those innovations could be about recyclability or bio-based material that can either break down in a compostable setting or perhaps even biodegrade. Manufacturing plastic and plastic products in America is a good thing and we should make sure that it doesn’t stop, and we do everything we can to keep waste out of the environment.
IFJ: How does PLASTICS view petroleum-derived vs bio-derived plastics?
Seaholm: We strongly believe and support both. We believe in an ‘all the above’ approach that’s based on performance and sustainability. I think there is some healthy competition there, but that’s a good thing and we would certainly support a free market that encourages that competition and promotes the value and benefits of both bio-based and petroleum-based material.
IFJ: What is the current stance of PLASTICS on mechanical recycling of plastics considering the large amount of recent skeptical to outright negative press it is receiving?
Seaholm: We need mechanical recycling, period. It’s an important part of the present and the future. Mechanical recycling is the right thing to do for a variety of products, so it is absolutely going to be maintained as an important mechanism for circularity, and we strongly support it.
With advances in advanced recycling technology, there exists a third source of raw materials for plastics that is “waste-derived,” rather than petroleum or bio-derived.
IFJ: What is PLASTICS stance on such materials and how advanced recycling derived inputs can be counted for with respect to “recycled content” claims?
Patrick Krieger: Advanced recycling comprises a wide range of recycling technologies that can result in very diverse products. We have a “plastics into materials” approach, which means that only outputs from plastics recycling that are made into plastics or other products are recycled plastics content.
While we aren’t aware of a cumulative estimate of the amount GHG emissions “saved” by using plastics in lieu of other materials, a recently published study in Environmental Science & Technology showed that non-plastics alternatives were 35% to 700% more impactful in emissions.1
IFJ: Considering the many benefits of plastics, does PLASTICS have an estimate of the total positive impact of plastics on the environment in terms of reduced GHG emissions and/or reduced carbon footprint?
Seaholm: Recent research points to exactly this. An independent report by McKinsey found that plastics have lower total greenhouse gas contribution than alternatives. Another report by Environmental Science and Technology came to the same conclusion. Plastic wins, there’s no doubt about it. Plastic is the best material in the vast majority of the applications that it’s used for, we just have to make sure that we collect, sort and ultimately recycle more of it.
IFJ: How does PLASTICS view the related, but separate, topics of biodegradable and compostable plastics? For instance, what is your position on potential regulation requiring “biodegradable” plastics to breakdown molecularly rather than breaking down to micro- and nano-plastics? Where do you see compostability of plastics going in the future?
Krieger: Appreciate the recognition of the differences between “biodegradability” and “compostable plastics.” I like to say that biodegradability is like the word “delicious” – pizza and ice cream are both delicious, but in very different ways. Terms like home- or commercially-compostable are much more context-specific and provide consumers with more information on how to dispose of a product at end of use. We encourage the use of the more specific terminology.
I don’t know which specific regulations you are referring to, but I think they may misunderstand the process of biodegradation. Biodegradation by its nature includes fragmentation into smaller and smaller pieces, much like an ice cube melting. At some point, these fragments will be at the micro- and nano-scale and will continue to further break down completely into products like biomass, carbon dioxide, and other elements and molecules found in nature.
Compostable plastics can help consumers divert organics like yard and food waste – the largest component of waste to landfill – into processes that convert them into compost, which is used as a soil amendment and fertilizer. If the US is committed to reducing waste to landfill, composting will need to be a big part of that future. Growth of the industry is contingent on the US building more commercial composters that accept these products, and there are bills currently being debated in Congress, like the COMPOST Act, that will help invest in these important pieces of infrastructure.
IFJ: Considering potential bans on single-use plastic items and/or requirements for reduction of plastics in packaging, how is Plastics advocating for sensible legislation rather than broad sweeping legislation or out-right bans?
Krieger: There needs to be strong end markets for the recyclable material and that’s why we support recycled content requirements. If you guarantee an end market for that recyclable material, you guarantee that there is value in it and the combination of public and private financing will come into place to make sure that it is collected, sorted and ultimately recycled.
Secondarily, we have to modernize and improve our recycling infrastructure and that’s where we now support extended producer responsibility laws that apply a small fee to the different types of packaging in order to make sure that they ultimately get recycled.
We’ve been asleep at the wheel for a couple of decades in many regards when it comes to the collection and sortation of recyclable material, and it’s made the economics of recycling a little bit untenable. We have to improve those economics and we can do it by guaranteeing end markets and by modernizing the infrastructure to make it more efficient.
