Circular chemistry

I have just published a book with the title "Circular Chemistry - The road from chemical panic towards circular economy", but in Swedish. A translation is however under process but I want to adress some descriptions of what circular chemistry is about, already now: It is a capability that manage the gap between the conventional way to deal with chemical risks and the defined vision of circular economy.

The most significant barrier towards recycling of plastics is hesitation due to lack of chemical data. Taking control of the supplier chain and dealing with demands on chemicals beyond what the legislation says are crucial capacities and capabilities needed in front runners companies aiming to be winners in a circular economy.

An awareness of both the opportunities and delimitations of various chemical management tools as legislation, certification programmes and NGO-lists is valuable for creating strategies. The book describes how to build value in toxic free products by presenting a new area called: Circular Chemistry.

Substitution of flame retardants - a sweet story

For a month ago, I bought a new sofabed. When they delivered it, I unwrapped the mattress. And felt a strange  smell and found a label that adressed it was fireprotected. Oh, shit, I didn't want to sleep on a polluted matress. There are about 350 flame retardants on the market, and some of them have been banned. Others are still not banned but suspected as hormone disrupters, and the majority of them are not even assessed. So, I called back and asked for a matress without these kind of chemicals.

The retailer replied, however, that the manufacturer unfortuneatly only had fireprotected matresses according to the regulations. I disclosed my professional background as a consultant, and told them that there arn`t actually such regulations in Sweden. It must be a kind of mixup between a "standard" and regulations, I said.

Then everything turned. A call back one week later on, they told me that the manufacturer had decided to abandon the flame retardants completely! And I was the one who should get the first one from their detoxified production in two weeks. -Well, we switched from synthetics to natural fibers at the same time.

This is ecoprofitability and win-win, everybody was happy. Both the retailer and the manufacturer thanked me for the information and will get my new matress in about two weeks.

Good night!

From risk to sustainability

As an ecotoxicologist, I am expected to deal with risks. But how do risks refer to sustainablity? Defining sustainablity as meeting the four systemconditions, does not exclude risks as such. So what are we talking about? Yes - unsustainable use of chemicals and unsustainable risks. There are a lot of risks as well as chemicals that actually is and should be a part of life, but therefore it is important to be more stringent and constructive. Avoiding risks or chemicals in general term of speaking do not help us at all.

Let us find out the priority chemicals that should be phased out, by using the criterias that are most relevant for the systemconditions i.e. degradablity, accumulation, hormone disrupters etc.

But the alternative solutions must be set in a sustainablity perspective, in order to have an economic sustainable driver for the innovator. We have to be sure that an alternative must at least live as long on the market, it can give enough payback. Switching from a fossil plastic to an GMO-based renewable might be a risky investment from bizz AND environmental point of view. A closed loop system with Nylon 6 is perhaps much more better idea?

Nature laws rules - even if PVC lobbyists corrupts the Commission

There is an increasing number of standards, tools, institutions, legislations etc that deals with environmental issues. Some of them are used with good intentions, but any of them can be misused very easily too.

Many of the bad guys, eg nuclear power plants, manufacurers of brominated flame retardants etc. are the first one to be certified with ISO 14001. From my point of view this is nothing else than greenwash. But the smartest and the most successful action of greenwash I ever have seen, is the "LCA of PVC and of Principal Competing Materials" comissioned by the European Commission, 2004.

I dont know how the PVC industry succeeded to take the control over the commissions work, but the outcome was a hughe report with a confusing rationale and invalid conclusions without any qualified scientific review and opposition. So, the the conclusion of the inconclusive report from the PVC industry was: "PVC is not worse than any other material". Wonderful! It is like when somebody says "I do not understand how to see the differences between a good and a bad horse, so all horses must be equal"!!

I could make this evalution much cheaper and shorter. All manufacturing, recycling, incineration processes are inherently associated to the formation och POPs, more or less. As long as we allow this material, the earth will accumulate persistent byproducts i.e dioxins. This is unsustainable according to system condition no 2, because this is according to the nature laws. The nature is not negoiatable in this perspective.

PVC-free bloodbags in pipe?

A technical procurement project for PVC-free bloodbags has just started in Sweden. This is really a good idea since 1/ The contamination of patients with the toxic softeners is really of high significance and 2/ This is the only medical device made by just PVC, without alternatives on the market.

We have, however, got positive signals from some manufacturers that this is technically possible. The most important barrier for market penetration is, as usual, the demand. And in this case the demand must come from the bloodcenters. We have the possibilities to create a demand within Sweden, from a couple of well organised county councils. But still Sweden has relative small number of individuals. We would therefore need international company from other bloodcenters in the world.
So, please, if you have good contact with a bloodcenter within your country and think that PVC-free bloodbags is in better line with expectations of godd health care - please tell me.....

CSR - a double edged sword

Most of the big companies realize that they really have to come up with something within sustainability. A popular concept is the CSR, corporate social responsibility. There are however no strict standards for such a programme, except a really diffuse idea of "balancing economy, ecology and social issues".
Politicians and decision makers have often their own interpretations of the CSR-idea. Actually the opposite that was meant from the beginning. Defending damaging subventions of strong stakeholder groups within the EU, politicians are referring to a "balance of two good interests". This is NOT social and ecology, but rather social versus ecology. This happens e.g. when discussing overfishing. Subsidising the fishery industry with more effective ships and fishing tools is of course an aggressive action that makes the situation worse, but still the decision is greenwashed by an CSR-argument; "defending the social rights of the fishermen".
CSR is therefore not a guarantee for sound and sustainable actions. The only way to ensure sustainable directions of the decisions is to recognise the definition of a sustainable society. There are four systems conditions, scientifically defined, that have to be met before the society is sustainable. So the decision makers should be asked how the individual actions or decisions contribute to fullfill the four system conditions. And meeting one of the system conditions on the expense of the others is never a solution.

www.ecoprofits.se