Bio-based: the new fossil?

Let me say this first: this is not an attempt to pull down the bio-based concept, but rather, I hope, some realism amidst all the praise within the “umbrella-term” of sustainability.

In this world of geopolitics and (in my view, justified) concerns about our planet and environment, anything labelled sustainable or "bio" is not merely embraced but hailed as a brilliant, game-changing solution. Hardly any government plans or corporate PR campaigns appear these days without mentioning sustainability in their titles... you simply can't do without terms like bio-based, renewable, sustainable, biodegradable, or… you name it!

And yes, it is plant-based (though oil is too, in part 😉), using CO2 during photosynthesis, it reduces reliance on decreasing natural oil supplies, many more countries around the world can do it and there is an inherent renewable aspect since the plants keep growing (provided they aren't completely removed!)... Good plan?

Officially, the Dutch government appears to spend around 4% (approximately €1 billion) on everything related to sustainability; incidentally, a portion of R&D expenditure also includes the sustainability of organisations such as TNO (Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research) and other scientific institutes, so there may well be additional investments in energy research, bio-based initiatives, or other sustainability-related areas (?).
In general, the government spends about 2% of its total budget on R&D, which amounts to 0.7% of our gross domestic product (GDP)... Just for comparison: the NATO standard is 5% of GDP!
I must say that I have little objections to this last mentioned expenditure. We, Netherlands, have invested far too little  (read: major reduction in spending) in our security anyway for years, and it will potentially also result in various technical and economic spin-offs. But if we want future "gems" like ASML or other sources of revenue, and aim to move towards a "knowledge economy," increasing the R&D budget makes more sense... and perhaps a joint EU borrowing specifically for Defence would be a very wise move, wouldn't you agree, Henri Bontenbal (Dutch politician and leader of political party CDA)?

The question that (logically) always follows is whether all that money is actually being well spent. When you look at the (NL) explosion of platforms, experts, research centres, seminars, and so on… you sometimes fear the worst. And, as often occurs in other fields (such as medical), it seems to be detrimental to the existing beautiful, interesting and regional development sites (for instance, the Polymer Science Park in Zwolle sadly bankrupt, Brightlands Geleen/Venlo struggling at times and what about the others?)… in my view, these are precisely the campuses that could facilitate a combination of research, educational institutions (universities and colleges of higher and vocational education) and businesses, at which subsidies can be utilised as efficiently (and with less fragmentation!) as possible.  Just look at the success of the “High Tech Campus Eindhoven” (former Philips). So, it is possible.

But, as is frequently the situation, government and House of Representatives are not filled with experts needed to provide a counterweight. That said… a bit more realism does seem to be growing lately with the new government. In my view, questions are, rightly, being raised about the actual results of all those sustainability studies and initiatives.

Because…
… how many viable bio-based plastics have actually been developed? And by that, speaking as a Freelancer specialising in the colouring and analysis of Engineering Plastics, I mean those capable of genuinely replacing established, high-performance technical plastics. Materials like PLA and PEF are certainly nicely useful for (short-term) packaging, but for applications such as cars and electrical appliances, existing fossil-based plastics remain superior.
And by the way, how much packaging material has been replaced by bio-based alternatives so far?
The greatest success story in the Netherlands, the PET bottle, does not require bio-based materials and relies on reuse! It even appears that the PET bottle process in the Netherlands is on track to achieve full circularity (according to Campina, major Dutch dairy cooperative brand). But... is our cheese packaged in PLA or PEF yet?
… how many fields with plants would we need to meet these “bio” demands, while still having enough space for feeding the world? And where would these fields be? Popping up everywhere, in Netherlands, just like those solar-panel-covered football fields, data centres, or storage facilities (!)?
… And let’s not forget the most important point: although it seems to me only a matter of time before we can develop polymers from bio-based raw materials that are just as good as those derived from fossil sources, we are still turning them into plastics that do not degrade!

I can hear people say: “But there are biodegradable plastics.”
Here’s the thing, though: 1. That process has to take place on land; in water, (for the time being) NOTHING degrades, so it simply remains waste, maintaining all the related risks to wildlife… 2. And then what? Do you dump all that waste in your back garden (if you have one) and wait at least a year for it to break down? Just look up how much plastic waste the average person generates in a year… 3. The idea of ​​using it for medical applications and agricultural film is great in principle, but in practice, it faces an uphill battle against much cheaper fossil-fuel-based alternatives (as is often the case). And based on the latest developments of finding new oil fields, it can take a while before we run out.

Personally, I’m not all that enthusiastic on the bio-based narrative…being the solution for everything!
Not because I think that less drilling for crude oil (and gas) is better for nature… Not because drilling often comes at the expense of the well-being of people closeby… Not because I expect this could lead to a more equitable distribution of economic power worldwide… Not because all the experts say that fossil resources will run out (?!)… And not because it might be a way to reduce CO2 emissions and energy consumption.
But… because I fear that it will merely replace our addiction to fossil fuels with an addiction to bio-based fuels, and does little to address the underlying and associated problems.
It makes me think of all those cheap, disposable items that are still being bought in huge quantities via all sorts of websites to this day.
It makes me think of all those mountains of waste around the world, often in economically poorer countries, that simply don't seem to be shrinking.
And it makes me think of the massive clouds of smoke produced when all those rubber tyres are burned.
I also think of all the plastic waste in our oceans, in part via freight transport, causing such harm to animals and coral reefs.
And... I think of the fact that, still only, approximately 10% of all produced plastics and rubbers are actually recycled!

The world has been producing commercial plastics for over 80 years now, ranging from PE, polyamides and polyesters to the more recently developed high-temperature plastics.
Mind you, they have provided us with so much and really improved life for countless people: consider not only lighter cars and all sorts of household appliances but also indispensable medical applications such as syringes, pacemakers, (IV) tubes, and various types of prosthetics.
Yet, somewhere down the line in recent decades, we “forgot” about the “inevitability of things”: what do we do with the WASTE?
And now that the water is standing at our lips, we are forced to think about it…

And naturally, this is going in a very human way - especially when you’re dealing with some 13.5 million adults in the Netherlands alone. There are countless good ideas, good intentions, and opinions, along with endless talk from a multitude of so-called experts and (happily) genuine ones.. in short: it can take years (and subsequently subsidies) for really applicable, realistic, and practical options to actually be developed and implemented. Incidentally: you don’t just pull innovation out of a hat; it involves all kinds of failures, it takes time... but somewhere along the way, successes and viable options do come up.

But, I thought, I might as well throw my tuppence worth in as well 😉.
My view is that, basically, humanity is actually quite smart, that when the need truly is there, we will find a solution. And when I take a look, a cautious one (I don’t understand every detail), at the information and research from various universities and research centres, I believe and expect that the solutions to all our sustainability problems and specifically waste are likely in there somewhere...
Perhaps something like my post recently on a. plastic waste burning , b. capturing usable raw materials and reaction products, c. reusing 😊

I keep coming back to the rapid development and introduction of vaccines during the Covid pandemic. 1. There was a profound sense of global urgency on both human and economic levels, with a widely shared longing and strong public support to escape the crisis as quickly as possible; 2. Solutions were already at hand, thanks to elaborate and innovative (subsidies!) R&D; and 3. An almost perfect collaboration emerged among Governments, Research centres, Businesses and Citizens. And in my view, something that sometimes goes unmentioned, 4. From development to the administration of the vaccines, it was done by Experts!

Could this “approach” work for sustainability (and well-being!) and specifically on waste or the availability of raw materials? And if so, when and under what conditions could this happen, and who or what would need to motivate or facilitate it?

My impression is that a sense of urgency, one that is widely shared (!), is still lacking.
At the same time, though, the success of the PET bottle (in NL) is undeniable!