In the wake of environmental conservation
A lot of concern has been placed on finding way of counteracting the impact of human activities on nature. One of the major issues that have been raised is on the concept of using biodegradable items. However, it is not clear whether biodegradability has any positive impacts in the environment. The arguments for and against biodegradability remain a major issue considering that a lot of things are described using that description.
Thesis
The diversity in the definition of biodegradability is too wide to the extent that it becomes too difficult to stick to the original description of the term which is related to the ability of an item to form compost naturally.
Background
Environmental protection has been an issue of concern for a long time now. As a result, scientists and researchers in various fields came up with ways of protecting the environment. One of the techniques suggested to meet this end is the use of biodegradable materials or polymers (Song et al., 2127). Apparently, the description of biodegradability has been tainted and items are falsely and erroneously classified under this description. According to Song et al., biodegradability is the ability of an item to form compost naturally (2127). As a result, these items do not release harmful chemicals to the environment. The outcome is the maintenance of the natural balance of gases in the atmosphere and the protection of the ozone.
Lines of Arguments
Biodegradable polymers are a common way of ensuring that plastics do not contribute to the pollution of the environment, but their varieties do not conform to the original definition of the word ‘biodegradable’. In their analysis of the issue, Song and his colleagues opine that there are two major types of biodegradable polymers; petroleum based and others that are made of biological materials (2127). On one hand, both polymers are considered biodegradable but there is a lot of arguments that the petroleum based ones are not suitable for the environment. For example, the idea of biodegradability is to ensure that items do not produce gases such as methane or carbon dioxide when exposed to the environment. However, the ones based on petroleum produce these gases and thus should not be considered biodegradable (Oehlmann et al., 3027).
The idea behind biodegradability also implies that an item must be in a position to disintegrate naturally within a short period (Davis and Song 148). However, a lot of plastics these days are classified as biodegradable yet they take a long time to decompose into naturally viable gases and by products (Oehlmann et al., 3027). In their research, Song and his colleagues insist that in as much as some plastics can disintegrate into smaller pieces, their rate of decomposing is questionable since there is no data that confirms the time within which biodegradation takes place (2130). When items take too long to biodegrade, the fragments may find their ways into water bodies or other parts of the ecosystem. Eventually, they become more harmful than beneficial to the environment.
The other issue with biodegradability is on the by-products of decomposition of an item. According to Thompson et al., most of the products that are classified as biodegradable disintegrate into small microscopic pieces that may not be harmful to the environment (1974). However, Song and his colleagues make it very clear that such microscopic pieces end up in oceans and are consumed by aquatic animals (2131). When this happens over a period of time, they cause genetic changes and possible mutations. Thus, they lose their character as biodegradable items. Such an observation leaves one to question the quality of biodegradability.
Another major issue that brings about the confusion in the definition of biodegradability is the lack of a standardised measure that may be used to classify an object as non-biodegradable or otherwise (Song et al., 2131). Apparently, the only way of determining the biodegradability of an item is to measure that rate of carbon dioxide that is evolved as the item decomposes (Andrady and Neal 1980; Hopewell et al., 2117). Carbon dioxide is produced during the process of decomposition as the microorganism feeds on the polymers. However, different microorganisms produce varied levels of carbon dioxide gas as they cause decomposition (Davis and Song 150). The problem is that there is no standard way of determining the levels of carbon dioxide produced by different items. Thus, biodegradability remains a misconceived word and sometimes it is used to classify items wrongly.
Alternate Argument
When it comes to measuring the by-products of decomposition, the alternative argument is that it is possible to do so without compromising any measure. For instance, Andrady and Neal insist that the solution is to develop a measure that must be used by all the countries (1980). If all countries can use a standard measure to determine biodegradability, then it becomes possible to determine the extent to which an item decomposes and what it produces in the environment. However, so far nothing significant has come forth and the issue of biodegradability is quite questionable.
Another significant alternative argument relates to the timing and the consumption of minute fragments of polymers by aquatic animals. In their explanation, Hopewell and his colleagues insist that some of these occurrences are minor challenges that can easily be handled through the development of viable solutions (2118). Similarly, some researchers such as Oehlmann and others insist that the amount of plastics that animals consume daily is so minute for them to be sources of worry (3029). In fact, the researchers suggest that it may be possible for the plastics to undergo further decomposition in the body of the animal. Considering that they do not cause any major harm in the environment, the impact they have on the body of the animals may be too small to be a source of concern. For this reason, these challenges are not a sources of concern.
Conclusion
The word biodegradable was introduced during the wake of environmental concern. The idea was that since the world could not do away with plastics, they should develop polymers that can undergo natural decomposition. However, the term has been misinterpreted most times and it is still unclear on whether some materials are biodegradable or not. First, there is no standard way of measuring the level of decomposition of a polymer. It is also impossible to determine the rate at which the decomposition of an item takes place and it is still difficult to measure the levels of carbon dioxide. The misinterpretation of the word biodegradability makes it impossible to use polymers in a sustainable manner.
Works Cited
Andrady Antony L., and Mike Neal A. Applications and societal benefits of plastics. Philosophical Transactions, 364 (2009), 1977–1987.
Davis George, and Song John H. Biodegradable packaging based on raw materials from crops and their impact on waste management. Industrial Crop Production, 23 (2006), 147–161.
Hopewell Jefferson, Robert Dvorak, and Edward Kosior . Plastics recycling: challenges and opportunities. Philosophical Transactions, 364 (2009), 2115–2126.
Oehlmann, Jörg. Ulrike Schulte-Oehlmann, Werner Kloas et al., A critical analysis of the biological impacts of plasticizers on wildlife. Philosophical Transactions, 364.1526 (2009), 3027-3038.
Song, John et al., Biodegradable and compostable alternatives to conventional plastics. Philosophical Transactions, 364.1526 (2009), 2127-2139.
Thompson, Richard C. Shanna Swan, Charles Moore, and Frederick vom saal. Our plastic age. Philosophical Transactions, 364.1526 (2009), 1973–1976.
