Science and Technology Policy Division, Directorate of Science, Technology and Industry, OECD, Paris, France.
N Biotechnol. 2013 Sep 25;30(6):635-46. doi: 10.1016/j.nbt.2012.11.021. Epub 2012 Dec 5.
Society is fundamentally ambivalent to the use of plastics. On the one hand, plastics are uniquely flexible materials that have seen them occupy a huge range of functions, from simple packing materials to complex engineering components. On the other hand, their durability has raised concerns about their end-of-life disposal. When that disposal route is landfill, their invulnerability to microbial decomposition, combined with relatively low density and high bulk, means that plastics will occupy increasing amounts of landfill space in a world where available suitable landfill sites is shrinking. The search for biodegradable plastics and their introduction to the marketplace would appear to be a suitable amelioration strategy for such a problem. And yet the uptake of biodegradable plastics has been slow. The term biodegradable itself has entered public controversy, with accidental and intended misuse of the term; the intended misuse has led to accusations and instances of 'greenwashing'. For this and other reasons standards for biodegradability and compostability testing of plastics have been sought. An environmental dilemma with more far-reaching implications is climate change. The need for rapid and deep greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions cuts is one of the drivers for the resurgence of industrial biotechnology generally, and the search for bio-based plastics more specifically. Bio-based has come to mean plastics based on renewable resources, but this need not necessarily imply biodegradability. If the primary purpose is GHG emissions savings, then once again plastics durability can be a virtue, if the end-of-life solution can be energy recovery during incineration or recycling. The pattern of production is shifting from the true biodegradable plastics to the bio-based plastics, and that trend is likely to persist into the future. This paper looks at aspects of the science of biodegradable and bio-based plastics from the perspective of policy advisers and makers. It is often said that the bioplastics suffer from a lack of a favourable policy regime when compared to the wide-ranging set of policy instruments that are available on both the supply and demand side of biofuels production. Some possible policy measures are discussed.
社会对塑料的使用持矛盾态度。一方面，塑料是独特的灵活材料，已广泛应用于从简单的包装材料到复杂的工程组件等各种功能。另一方面，其耐用性引发了对其最终处置的担忧。当处置途径是垃圾填埋场时，它们不易被微生物分解，再加上密度相对较低、体积较大，这意味着在可用的合适垃圾填埋场日益减少的情况下，塑料将占据越来越多的垃圾填埋空间。寻找可生物降解塑料并将其引入市场似乎是解决此类问题的合适方法。然而，可生物降解塑料的采用速度一直很慢。“可生物降解”一词本身就引起了公众的争议，包括对该术语的意外和有意滥用；这种有意滥用导致了指责和“漂绿”行为。出于这个原因和其他原因，人们一直在寻求塑料生物降解性和可堆肥性测试的标准。气候变化带来了更深远影响的环境困境。减少温室气体（GHG）排放的需要是工业生物技术普遍复兴的驱动因素之一，也是寻找生物基塑料的具体原因。生物基意味着基于可再生资源的塑料，但这不一定意味着可生物降解。如果主要目的是减少温室气体排放，那么如果最终解决方案是在焚烧或回收过程中进行能源回收，那么塑料的耐用性也可以成为一种优势。生产模式正在从真正的可生物降解塑料转向生物基塑料，这种趋势可能会持续到未来。本文从政策顾问和制定者的角度来看待可生物降解和生物基塑料的科学方面。人们常说，与生物燃料生产的供应和需求方面可用的广泛政策工具相比，生物塑料缺乏有利的政策制度。本文还讨论了一些可能的政策措施。
