Answers to FAQs (answered by me with no input from Dow): 1) But this doesn't solve plastic waste therefore it's bad. It doesn't solve plastic waste, and I mention this at least 4 times in the video. They are two very separate issues. For what it's worth, Dow is also working to remove plastic waste from the environment in order to recycle it. 2) Why are Dow jumping on the back of #TeamTrees? They're not. This video took about 3 months to make. I was coincidentally already making a video about trees at about the same time #TeamTrees was happening. I asked Dow if they would be happy for me to add that end bit (as they're paying for the video, they could object to me asking for donations) but they were happy with it. 3) But it's using trees/burning trees/killing trees therefore it's bad! Growing trees removes carbon from the air. The carbon released when a tree is burned is no more than the carbon that tree has absorbed, so has no net effect on global CO2. The problem is when trees are being cut down and burned at a rate faster than they are being planted and growing. As I mention many times in the video, this wood comes from sustainably managed forests, meaning the overall amount of wood in the forest is constant as new trees are planted to replace those removed. Plus, this project uses byproducts of the wood, so no trees are being cut down that would otherwise not have been cut down. 4) What about biodegradable plastic? See point #1. Plus biodegradable plastic has its own serious environmental issues (it's rarely truly degraded). Recyclable plastic is in my opinion much more important than biodegradable plastic, and this bioplastic is recyclable. 5) But Dow make money from plastics therefore they are bad Taking an approach like this will not solve the climate crisis. We should be working with massive companies like this to make massive reductions in their greenhouse gas emissions, and hold them accountable if they don't. Trying to solve global warming without getting the big companies on board will not work. There will always be someone making money from plastics as long as there are people buying plastics. And there will always be people buying plastics.
so i think you could have made it clearer that Dow and Teamtrees are two different parts and have nothing to do with each other but appart from that. very interesting video.
not going to lie, i honestly thought this was going to be another one of those "tree hugger" type videos but after watching and reading this post you seem to be one of a handful of very intelligent people that understand the overall process that nature has and not just looking at things under a microscope and responding to one little detail here or there! i'm not sure looking to the land is the fastest solution to sequestering the carbon but to the oceans and planting more kelp beds, though NOT cutting down large and slower growing trees will certainly help. also if California get's their head out of the ass and stops preventing the smaller natural wildfires from occurring on a smaller more regular cycle and letting people clean up and burn(as firewood) the downed and dead limbs instead of letting them pile up until they end up with situations like they have now... they can stop being a HUGE contributor to CO2 emissions! they're their own worst enemy! i know a lot of people seem to think the rise in sea level is due to all the GHG's but i beg to differ and offer a much simpler and practical solution that is highly overlooked as it pertains to a very simply 3rd or 4th grade level physics(nothing on this planet is immune to the laws of physics which is why i believe my solution to be correct!). Archimedes Principle! if you add up the displacement(the key to the whole problem that doesn't seem to be understood by any of the "mainstream scientists" as they're not looking at the big picture but at little things under a microscope...) of every ship, man made island, break walls, concrete for major ports and underwater volcanic activity bringing new material to the surface(well the "underwater surface") that we do or DON'T know about because of the depth in some places and that we don't explore much of the ocean in it's entirety then you have a VERY VERY large volume of water that has to go somewhere! all in all i think we have a fairly negligible impact on the environment on burning fossil fuels in comparison to the amount of stuff we keep putting in the oceans! trying to get people to understand that an average sized military cruiser(~20,000 tons, 20,000 x 2000(pounds per ton) ÷ 8(pounds per gallon) = 5 million gallons PER ship... now how many of those does the US Navy alone have out in the ocean? battleships and aircraft carriers weigh far more as well as oil tankers, shipping vessels, oil rigs, ALL the little personal watercraft(it adds up quick!), Cruise ships, luxury yachts, man made islands that are permanent... we've been adding a LOT of material to the sea that no one noticed until recently... it's like Aesop's Fable: "The Crow & The Pitcher(www.read.gov/aesop/012.html
@@VeganSemihCyprus33 We have serious studies out now demonstrating for example the practical potential of creating up to 5 billion hectares of forest cover in the coming decades. ( science.sciencemag.org/content/365/6448/76 ) I think the tonnage of wood you mentioned are actually sustainable if we get serious about ecosystem restoration and use of natural materials. But we need to get plastic out of common usage to limit the future level of microplastics at large, some unfortunate level is already present and increasing now as the existing waste breaks up. I favor incinerating it in Swedish developed non-toxic power plants instead of costly reprocessing. Its alright that Dow is looking into and talking about processing wood this way, the documentry was just a bit too complimentary to be respectable. And the title seems to deceptive, should be something like "How to recycle plastic using a tree derived solvent"
Okay. It produces less CO2, great. The plastic produced in that factory you visited will still end up in waterways, on ocean beds, in Arctic ice, in the food in our kitchens, and the water we drink. They talk about recycling however plastic is not infinitely recyclable. So, all of the plastic produced in that factory will end up as waste, it'll be put into landfill or burnt. This is not Sustainable. This is not Circular. This is a way of bringing more plastic into the the world so they can make a profit. Supporting this project is irresponsible and down right dangerous. Until plastic producers commit to recovering and recycling the plastic they create in an continuous loop then they cannot invoke the circular economy or claim to be sustainable as they simply are not.
@@VeganSemihCyprus33 Yes! Thanks for your comment. This is not a sustainable solution at all UNLESS we dramatically reduce demand for plastic. If we focus on finding alternatives to plastic wherever possible, then maybe plastic from wood could work for any case where plastic is absolutely necessary. But I felt like the point of this video was to make Dow chemical look sustainable, which is frankly absurd.
@@VeganSemihCyprus33 All those words make me believe that you do not believe global warming is a real phenomenon. We need to take steps to combat global warming and no single step is a cure all. Nobody said all plastics need to be or can be made from tress. There are many technological limitations in addition to many other factors that are preventing greenhouse gas emissions from being reduced enough. Nothing will magically be done overnight but it must be done as quickly as possible.
@@VeganSemihCyprus33 She did specifically mention that usage/demand needs to be reduced. They also specifically mentioned how many tones of CO2 emissions are produced by fossil fuel and tree plastics. Nobody denies that this is an advertisement for a new technology. No single solution is a unicorn.
@@VeganSemihCyprus33 I don´t know if that´s true, and watever, a youtube comment is not a good way to divulge scientific content, if you want to you can make a video or an article, but a youtube coment? who will believe your info. is veridic, thanks for trying to divulge important scientific facts, but here is not a very good way to do it, and also that long, everyone who see it scares of it, but thanks, you have a great heart
@@AshArAis i mean he isn't wrong, just the focus on it was a bit ... interesting ... after he was prompted such a nice "we like the environment" line ;)
This was one of the most encouraging things I heard him say. Corporations can only be trusted to maximise profit, so you want them to see an undesirable output as a loss of value in order for them to do anything about it (without external regulatory pressure).
So this plastic has a smaller carbon footprint compared to 'regular' plastics, which is nice. However, the nafta is chemically identical to the stuff we extract from the earth, so the degrading process and waste (hello oceans) are still a problem, are they not?
Yeah basically. I think the goal has to be reduced plastics everywhere we can and use bioplastic in places where it genuinely can't be got rid of, like in medical applications.
The liptons from which the oil is derived would have been burned had it not been turned into place. So if you're burning gas or coal to produce your energy, then there is no net benefit for the planet. But if, as is the case in the country in which they're doing this, energy is derived through renewable means, then finding a use (any use), for the liptons other than burning it benefits the planet a great deal. If that use happens to be plastics, all the better because, as she stated in the video, the introduction into the environment of carbon-based plastics needs to be reduced; and if it's done from a managed forest each new generation of trees will remove the carbon that the plastics introduced into the atmosphere, even if none of the plastics are recycled. But presumably some portion of the plastic will be recycled, thus making the whole process a carbon sink. Hope this helps.
Great video! (Audio is a little funny though). I fully appreciate your comment: "I literally have a PhD from Oxford" 😂 had the same thought (not from Oxford) about an iron the other day
Just for the record there are plenty of people who don't have a phd from Oxford who are totally capable of recycling at home and who do. The two things are not related.
The one thing I'm left wondering about is the cost to make this naphtha versus the cost of naphtha from oil. Because in the end, competitive pricing is the easiest way to get customers interested.
Did anyone see the video about how all the coal in world were produced during one period after plants started producing lignans and before bacteria was able to break down lignans.
Archivist me started screaming the moment you mentioned lignin. Then you mentioned the addition of alkalines so I breathed out a little. Would love to see a more detailed video on the chemical reactions involved but it’s Dow so that’s probably proprietary. Regardless I think you found a good balance between managing the corporate sponsorship and asking the questions that need answering.
I'd like to hear more about recycling low grade plastic by turning it into oil, as mechanical recycling degrades (shortens) plastic polymers so quickly that it is barely "cyclic" and rather just a little loopy.
Heat and pressure converts plastics into oils. It is not "cost efficient" for our current uses of plastic so it is not overly utilized by corporate buyers and thus doesn't end up in the market 🤨. And by use I mean packaging. The biggest use case of plastic that can easily be replaced with celluloid doped with a flame retardant.
That sniff test reminded me of 'The Mad Woman of Chailot' 😆. "Petroleum." 😃 It is so neat to see you get behind and support Team Trees. It looks like a wonderful much needed organization.
There was someone who’s presentation I visited during high school and one of the products they showed off and even gave out was golf tees made from corn
I notice the cost of this process is not mentioned, so I'm assuming it's high, or at least higher than working from fossil fuels. Unless they are the cheapest option, such innovations will remain a niche process used in the small proportion of premium products purchased by people with the financial freedom to make ethical yet more expensive purchases. For the ethical process to become the majority form of plastic production, the "dirty" methods need to be priced out of the market by regulation such as carbon taxes.
Oh my God, this is wonderful. I am very happy that Dow is working to make the future better. We can only try right. As manufacturing technology gets better, we replace products with better products for the planet and Human society. There is no simple solution, but we all want the stuff we are used to right! It's a work in progress. But just think about what life would be like without plastic.
As long as we don't start thinking at bulldozing the forests that are pulling CO² out of the air to keep up with demand is a better solution than using oil. Using the leftovers, as long as it isn't more damaging than using oil, is a good idea.
I am interested to learn about this projects. I have potential bamboo material can be used to replace single plastic use. Can we discuss more in detail?
Does this plastic react differently if it does get into the environment? Is it more biodegradable or are the bonds exactly like oil based plastics? I always find it disingenuous when the consumer is blamed for much of the plastic. The end consumer has little choice. For example. Peppers are sold in a 3 pack in plastic wrapping that can't be recycled. You could buy 3 separate peppers but he the cost is something like £1.15 prepacked or 55p each so more expensive. Most consumers can't afford to spend the extra. The demand isn't consumer based but it is framed that way because it is made to look that way.
Other than being recyclable, this plastic isn't really any better or worse than other recyclable plastics. That's not the issue this process is trying to solve, though. This process is mean to reduce the damage to the environment in the manufacturing of the plastic itself, which is still a huge improvement.
this is sooo cool! if you can make plastics and biofuels from the byproducts of paper production, which in turn comes from the by product of timber production, then if the raw material is sustainably produced then it seems like itd be carbon neutral, or far far closer to it than plastics previously were. if we can improve and spread the process of recycling then this is real exciting!
Wow. All the other bioplastics I’m aware of are from food like corn and avocado pits and potatoes, and people have allergies to those, some of them deadly. Not that we shouldn’t be looking into every possible solution, but this is exciting and I wonder how big it could scale up with the rate of tree growth vs reducing demand for plastic etc. Pretty exciting, thanks for doing this vid!
Is Dow willing to take a hit to get the "circular economy" on plastics? The biggest polluters keep ducking this question. They won't own their contribution to the problems, monetarily.
Well, more easily obtainable (e.g. via recycling. Or via paper mills etc.) raw materials will always be a good investment for them in the long term. So they might not even have to take a huge hit with it? But I'm not an expert, and presumably at this point extracting and refining oil is still cheaper per gallon than bioplastics, otherwise *ALL* of the big companies would be all over it?
ask yourself - search - read - understand.... only at that point, comment corporate.dow.com/en-us/news/press-releases/dow-to-help-lead-1-billion-global-alliance-to-end-plastic-waste-in-the-environment.html
I'm not making an attack, but a criticism. Every individual does right, in the moment, in their eyes. I'm curious about energy costs. If the kwh are greater to produce wood naphtha (including energy lost in transmission), as opposed to coal or petrol, than we'll hurt the environment less by our current system. Finding these resources and technologies is trivial compared to finding, collecting, and moving and utilizing the energy itself (which petrol makes very easy). If they've accounted for all the energy lost, than good on them, and I hope they benefit greatly from it; If not, and they're simply making a PR move, then I'd say unkind things. As for recycling, that also centers around energy costs. The amount of energy we wasted in the US, recycling paper to sell to China is tremendous. On top of that, we end up with a toxic waste of inks that requires so much processing to bring to an environmentally safe level. Growing and transporting trees is considerably more efficient than recycling paper, but people still do it, despite the ecological destruction of paper recycling. With plastics, most centers don't care to inform people of what category plastics they accept (Here in the US we have a category system marked on almost all plastics). As a result, more resources are wasted transporting and sorting plastics than if they were just dumped. Recycling, as it is in the US, has always been a social job program, and, until recently, an easy way to get money off China. With respect to Mr. Larson, I don't doubt that he himself is against the overuse of plastics, but when a DowDuPont regional manager is breathing down some distributor's neck about getting cut off because he's not moving enough product, that distributor is gonna want to put his kids through college before he starts to consider the environment. If they present a documented company policy, with case evidence of enforcement, only then will I believe such a vague statement of policy.
A good video. It's hard to walk the fine line between hating on corporations (because that's the popular thing to do) and revealing the good things they are working on. Lots of your commenters missed the point (or were unable to understand words) that even if they believe plastics to be BAD, we still use plastic and it's better that the plastic we use be created sustainable rather than from petroleum. People seem to want everything to be a 100% solution when in fact incrementally solving pieces of the problem is the way that the world works. Good on you for sharing the new technologies in this video! Also, never forget that 50% of the population is below median intelligence. Those people too comment on youtube videos. :)
I appreciate that there's a video on this topic, but as an environmentalist, I think this video is deceptive form of Greenwashing. If you produce a video funded by Dow, it will inevitably be a form of advertisement for Dow, not an unbiased report. Do a quick google search of "Dow chemical pollution" and you'll see what an awful history this company has. There were some "tough" questions but really not as tough as they could be. I think the most important thing with regard to plastic is to reduce plastic use wherever possible. Even recycling plastics still results in waste that gets into the environment, because you can only recycle the same plastic material a small number of times. In the case where plastic is absolutely necessary, yes I do agree that making it from wood is much better than fossil fuels. But plastic is not sustainable, and we need to be honest about that and focus on finding alternatives to plastic. In response to the FAQs, and the notion that we have to work with big companies to solve global warming isn't necessarily wrong, but Sally, I don't see how you can be an unbiased messenger when you are taking money from Dow. Untethered capitalism is a huge part of how we got into the climate crisis, and we need to be really skeptical when the same companies that got us into the crisis claim that they've come up with technology that's going to solve it.
Just wanted to say I love you and I love this! Will be sharing with everyone I know. I will also be researching more into Bio Plastics. Thx for always educating me.
A great video! It would be better if we made plastics compatible with nature, as stray bits will always be getting loose. For the current crop of plastics, a deposit on plastic items works wonders for getting over 90% recycled. Harsh chemistry is currently the method employed, but we need to move away from hazardous chemicals and towards enzymes, microorganisms, and safer chemicals from a hazards standpoint. Enzymes can be engineered to break down structures at the molecular level, with less energy inputs and much less risk, and a diminishment of the need for caustic chemicals like sodium hydroxide, or strong acids like sulfuric acid. Let's green the whole supply chain, from forest to table! 💚 🌿 🍏 🌄
It took nature quite some time before it could break down lignin, but now we take it for granted. How would society change when some fungus started digesting just polyethylene?
(posted about a 15 months after video) In sweden we do now (noticed it a few months ago for the first time) have crisp/chips-bags made out of finnish tall oil plastic - so this is now in consumer products. The swedish press-release about it (dated aug 2020) is at www.mynewsdesk.com/se/orklasverige/pressreleases/orkla-lanserar-chipspaasar-med-fossilfri-plast-3028632 (google translate does a passable translation from swedish)
The plastic they are producing and profiting off is ending up in our natural environments. Doesn't matter if its coming from trees or oil, it's still plastic and it's still awful.
Recycling in my country (Hungary) - against all attempts, is low in its efficiency. There still too much plastic go into landfills. Imho, the ultimate solution would be a plastic that doesn't release toxic fumes when burned. Then, even if I continue selecting the trash, I wouldn't mind others throwing it to communal trash, incinerating wouldn't be bad after all. How safe is burning this bioplastic?
We have to start thinking globally and not as individuals. Lets face it, we need plastic. We have to start using it responsibly. Lets work on that too! Everyone of us rely's on plastic in our daily life. Same thing with cars. We need them. But they produce pollution. Should we all give up our cars? are willing to give up your? I doubt it. We cannot go back to horse's. We use technology as it comes to us from the engineers and scientists. When they come up with a better solution, we will use that. Our engineers and scientists have a big job and responsibility. Give them some love won't you?
how many trees are being cut down compared to how many trees are being planted? and also as we know, it takes many years for trees to grow so how sustainable is this really?
Other than the fact that this plastic is recyclable, it doesn't solve plastic waste issues anymore than other recyclable plastics. The process does help solve the problem of the manufacturing of plastics being harmful, which is still a good step forward.
Point is drastically reduced carbon emissions by using an already existing byproducts that is indistinguishable from existing plastics and fully compatible because it is nearly identical.
Technically this will actually take out CO2 from the atmosphere instead of releasing it back into it again: Trees are not a permanent storage. As forests grow they store more and more carbon but eventually they reach a stage where old trees die and slowly rot away, releasing that carbon again, and new trees grow in their place, picking the carbon back up. It reaches an equilibrium where the stored carbon remains about equal and the forest doesn't take in any more overall. But if you take wood and turn it into plastic which rots away more slowly, it'll remain that way for a potentially very long time. And a new tree could *still* grow in the old one's place. It's kind of a way to indefinitely increase a forest's storage. That's not to say this doesn't have its own problems though. Clearly plastic waste is a huge issue, and plastic not ending up where it belongs is rather awful. Alternatively, bio-degradable plastic made through this process would work in the sense that at least we aren't tapping the oil fields for that carbon. It'll remain about equal overall. The plastic rotting away would be the same deal, roughly, as wood doing that.
Kram1032 . This video was about making naphtha from lignin, which is Dow’s fee ticket to “green” credentials / they just need to give lip service to recycling, because it’s not their problem, and with lignin-naphtha, it’s all business as usual. Sally’s done a great video, and at the beginning pointed out the appalling issues with biodiesels, but biodegradability should have been on topic here - but I imagine it wasn’t, because that’s not on Dow’s agenda - they can profit from the ambiguity of “bioplastic” which means for them “lignin-naphtha” for non-natural polymers but for many others means “natural polymers” which biodegrade. Also there is the diesel cost of creating that pile of wood chips. Yeah, it’s cute that plastics lock up Carbon, but that’s not a solution to carbonization of the atmosphere and oceans - we burn way more than we plasticize.
"I literally have a PHD from Oxford..." little humble brag....:) Seems to have potential if: We only use sustainable plantation plants Actually recycle the material Find more ways to make them degradable
How is this any better than making it form fossil fuels? Fossil fuels are old plants that fossilized, if you make plastic out of them the co2 isnt released into the atmosphere same as if you make them from trees. I fail to see how this would reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Most of them haven't been planted yet. The target completion date is in 2024, iirc. The Arbor Day Foundation has the responsibility for planting the trees. They have a good reputation.
Can someone please tell me why we're so focused on greenhouse gasses, while we continue to overlook the environmental toxicity timebomb that plastics are creating(?) Putting all our eggs into greenhouse gas reduction, is hardly going to matter when biological life/DNA synthesis succumbs to disease-related plastic toxicity.
6:45 _>"...replace one tonne of fossil fuels with one ton of bio naphtha, we are saving 2.86 tonnes of greenhouse gases."_ I have no idea how many tonnes of CO2 _"one tonne of fossil fuels"_ normally creates tho. Is he talking about a 90% reduction? 1%? 🤷
It's a bit of stoichiometry. If you start with one ton of fossil fuels, you can calculate based on how much oxygen it consumes how many tons of CO2 it will produce. Since fossil fuels are hydrocarbons, the vast bulk of their mass is carbon, with some hydrogen. When you burn them each carbon atom combines with two oxygen atoms to make one molecule of CO2. The weight of atoms are measured in atomic mass units. Carbon weighs 12 (mostly, it varies by isotope), each oxygen weighs 16. so each unit of carbon burned combines with more than double its own weight in oxygen to produce that amount of CO2, no atoms are created or destroyed. So basically he's saying that because the fossil fuel was never used the carbon it contains was never bonded to oxygen to make CO2. Now the non fossil carbon used in this process will wind up as CO2, but since it came from a tree which consumed CO2 to build its own body that is not new carbon from the ground, it's just carbon getting back to the air.
IIRC, these managed forests are an amazing carbon sink. When the trees are young and grow fast, they suck up a lot of carbon from the air, but as the trees mature and slow down the growing, the carbon sequestration slows also. So growing, cutting down, and replanting fast growing forests should be a pretty good method of capturing carbon. As long as you don't release it back via burning or decomposing.
Why can't they do this the other way round where you then plastic into wood as plastic takes too lock to decompose but wood does not and can be use a fertilizer for plant, would that be better than wasting wood to make plastic as we have a plastic problem??
Answers to FAQs (answered by me with no input from Dow):
1) But this doesn't solve plastic waste therefore it's bad.
It doesn't solve plastic waste, and I mention this at least 4 times in the video. They are two very separate issues. For what it's worth, Dow is also working to remove plastic waste from the environment in order to recycle it.
2) Why are Dow jumping on the back of #TeamTrees?
They're not. This video took about 3 months to make. I was coincidentally already making a video about trees at about the same time #TeamTrees was happening. I asked Dow if they would be happy for me to add that end bit (as they're paying for the video, they could object to me asking for donations) but they were happy with it.
3) But it's using trees/burning trees/killing trees therefore it's bad!
Growing trees removes carbon from the air. The carbon released when a tree is burned is no more than the carbon that tree has absorbed, so has no net effect on global CO2. The problem is when trees are being cut down and burned at a rate faster than they are being planted and growing. As I mention many times in the video, this wood comes from sustainably managed forests, meaning the overall amount of wood in the forest is constant as new trees are planted to replace those removed. Plus, this project uses byproducts of the wood, so no trees are being cut down that would otherwise not have been cut down.
4) What about biodegradable plastic?
See point #1. Plus biodegradable plastic has its own serious environmental issues (it's rarely truly degraded). Recyclable plastic is in my opinion much more important than biodegradable plastic, and this bioplastic is recyclable.
5) But Dow make money from plastics therefore they are bad
Taking an approach like this will not solve the climate crisis. We should be working with massive companies like this to make massive reductions in their greenhouse gas emissions, and hold them accountable if they don't. Trying to solve global warming without getting the big companies on board will not work. There will always be someone making money from plastics as long as there are people buying plastics. And there will always be people buying plastics.
so i think you could have made it clearer that Dow and Teamtrees are two different parts and have nothing to do with each other but appart from that. very interesting video.
not going to lie, i honestly thought this was going to be another one of those "tree hugger" type videos but after watching and reading this post you seem to be one of a handful of very intelligent people that understand the overall process that nature has and not just looking at things under a microscope and responding to one little detail here or there! i'm not sure looking to the land is the fastest solution to sequestering the carbon but to the oceans and planting more kelp beds, though NOT cutting down large and slower growing trees will certainly help. also if California get's their head out of the ass and stops preventing the smaller natural wildfires from occurring on a smaller more regular cycle and letting people clean up and burn(as firewood) the downed and dead limbs instead of letting them pile up until they end up with situations like they have now... they can stop being a HUGE contributor to CO2 emissions! they're their own worst enemy!
i know a lot of people seem to think the rise in sea level is due to all the GHG's but i beg to differ and offer a much simpler and practical solution that is highly overlooked as it pertains to a very simply 3rd or 4th grade level physics(nothing on this planet is immune to the laws of physics which is why i believe my solution to be correct!). Archimedes Principle! if you add up the displacement(the key to the whole problem that doesn't seem to be understood by any of the "mainstream scientists" as they're not looking at the big picture but at little things under a microscope...) of every ship, man made island, break walls, concrete for major ports and underwater volcanic activity bringing new material to the surface(well the "underwater surface") that we do or DON'T know about because of the depth in some places and that we don't explore much of the ocean in it's entirety then you have a VERY VERY large volume of water that has to go somewhere! all in all i think we have a fairly negligible impact on the environment on burning fossil fuels in comparison to the amount of stuff we keep putting in the oceans! trying to get people to understand that an average sized military cruiser(~20,000 tons, 20,000 x 2000(pounds per ton) ÷ 8(pounds per gallon) = 5 million gallons PER ship... now how many of those does the US Navy alone have out in the ocean? battleships and aircraft carriers weigh far more as well as oil tankers, shipping vessels, oil rigs, ALL the little personal watercraft(it adds up quick!), Cruise ships, luxury yachts, man made islands that are permanent... we've been adding a LOT of material to the sea that no one noticed until recently... it's like Aesop's Fable: "The Crow & The Pitcher(www.read.gov/aesop/012.html
@@VeganSemihCyprus33 We have serious studies out now demonstrating for example the practical potential of creating up to 5 billion hectares of forest cover in the coming decades. ( science.sciencemag.org/content/365/6448/76 ) I think the tonnage of wood you mentioned are actually sustainable if we get serious about ecosystem restoration and use of natural materials. But we need to get plastic out of common usage to limit the future level of microplastics at large, some unfortunate level is already present and increasing now as the existing waste breaks up. I favor incinerating it in Swedish developed non-toxic power plants instead of costly reprocessing. Its alright that Dow is looking into and talking about processing wood this way, the documentry was just a bit too complimentary to be respectable. And the title seems to deceptive, should be something like "How to recycle plastic using a tree derived solvent"
Okay. It produces less CO2, great.
The plastic produced in that factory you visited will still end up in waterways, on ocean beds, in Arctic ice, in the food in our kitchens, and the water we drink.
They talk about recycling however plastic is not infinitely recyclable. So, all of the plastic produced in that factory will end up as waste, it'll be put into landfill or burnt.
This is not Sustainable. This is not Circular. This is a way of bringing more plastic into the the world so they can make a profit.
Supporting this project is irresponsible and down right dangerous. Until plastic producers commit to recovering and recycling the plastic they create in an continuous loop then they cannot invoke the circular economy or claim to be sustainable as they simply are not.
@@VeganSemihCyprus33 Yes! Thanks for your comment. This is not a sustainable solution at all UNLESS we dramatically reduce demand for plastic. If we focus on finding alternatives to plastic wherever possible, then maybe plastic from wood could work for any case where plastic is absolutely necessary. But I felt like the point of this video was to make Dow chemical look sustainable, which is frankly absurd.
Frolic is a criminally underused word - and a criminally underexperienced feeling for most people
I would've frolicked in exactly the same way :D
What does frolic mean?
puff the magic dragon lived by the sea, and frolicked by the autumn mists by the land of Honlalee
“I asked him some very scientific questions?”
“Why is it called tall oil if it’s not very tall?”
I am deceased. 😂😂
@@VeganSemihCyprus33 do you think i´ll read that?
@@VeganSemihCyprus33 All those words make me believe that you do not believe global warming is a real phenomenon. We need to take steps to combat global warming and no single step is a cure all. Nobody said all plastics need to be or can be made from tress. There are many technological limitations in addition to many other factors that are preventing greenhouse gas emissions from being reduced enough. Nothing will magically be done overnight but it must be done as quickly as possible.
@@VeganSemihCyprus33 She did specifically mention that usage/demand needs to be reduced. They also specifically mentioned how many tones of CO2 emissions are produced by fossil fuel and tree plastics. Nobody denies that this is an advertisement for a new technology. No single solution is a unicorn.
@@VeganSemihCyprus33 if i want to learn something i´ll go to an university or a course, not to the coment on a video, logic
@@VeganSemihCyprus33 I don´t know if that´s true, and watever, a youtube comment is not a good way to divulge scientific content, if you want to you can make a video or an article, but a youtube coment? who will believe your info. is veridic, thanks for trying to divulge important scientific facts, but here is not a very good way to do it, and also that long, everyone who see it scares of it, but thanks, you have a great heart
"plastic is really terrible for the environment" - "and it's also way too valuable to end up there" spoken like a true businessman :'D
I can appreciate the bluntness
@@AshArAis i mean he isn't wrong, just the focus on it was a bit ... interesting ... after he was prompted such a nice "we like the environment" line ;)
This was one of the most encouraging things I heard him say. Corporations can only be trusted to maximise profit, so you want them to see an undesirable output as a loss of value in order for them to do anything about it (without external regulatory pressure).
@@pix23 oh yeah definitely, just didn't expect him to admit it :P
Unfortunately, it is likely that a lot of the plastic they produce WILL end up in the environment, and yet they still produce it.
when a grid's misaligned with another behind that's a moire
So this plastic has a smaller carbon footprint compared to 'regular' plastics, which is nice. However, the nafta is chemically identical to the stuff we extract from the earth, so the degrading process and waste (hello oceans) are still a problem, are they not?
Yeah basically. I think the goal has to be reduced plastics everywhere we can and use bioplastic in places where it genuinely can't be got rid of, like in medical applications.
Naptha. They talked about how they're also pushing for more/easier recycling to cover the issue you're talking about.
@@AlRoderick And also try to recycle and reuse as much as possible of the plastic that we need to use in those special applications.
The liptons from which the oil is derived would have been burned had it not been turned into place. So if you're burning gas or coal to produce your energy, then there is no net benefit for the planet. But if, as is the case in the country in which they're doing this, energy is derived through renewable means, then finding a use (any use), for the liptons other than burning it benefits the planet a great deal. If that use happens to be plastics, all the better because, as she stated in the video, the introduction into the environment of carbon-based plastics needs to be reduced; and if it's done from a managed forest each new generation of trees will remove the carbon that the plastics introduced into the atmosphere, even if none of the plastics are recycled. But presumably some portion of the plastic will be recycled, thus making the whole process a carbon sink. Hope this helps.
yes, but this is about replacing fossil fuels, not reducing plastics.
Terrific! I loved how you didn't shy away from tackling the "but you made it worse" question, and showed a pretty fair perspective on the issue.
That end bit reminds me of one of my favorite quotes from the Late David MacKay ‘If everyone does a little, we’ll achieve only a little’
You might wanna properly disclose this video as an ad, otherwise ofcom might be quite unhappy.
Found this video after seeing a plastic package claiming it was made from trees. Blew my mind
Great video! (Audio is a little funny though). I fully appreciate your comment: "I literally have a PhD from Oxford" 😂 had the same thought (not from Oxford) about an iron the other day
Sally will always get my view and got £5 for trees because I love trees and love Sally. Popper British stuff, asking the right questions.
Just for the record there are plenty of people who don't have a phd from Oxford who are totally capable of recycling at home and who do. The two things are not related.
The one thing I'm left wondering about is the cost to make this naphtha versus the cost of naphtha from oil. Because in the end, competitive pricing is the easiest way to get customers interested.
Trees absorb carbon monxide but no one seems to worry about cutting down the trees to build a subdivision...
It's almost like nobody remembers what Cellophane is.
Duff Chimp please explain?
@@tonyhussey3610 Cellophane is made from cellulose.
Turpentine also!
Did anyone see the video about how all the coal in world were produced during one period after plants started producing lignans and before bacteria was able to break down lignans.
Archivist me started screaming the moment you mentioned lignin. Then you mentioned the addition of alkalines so I breathed out a little. Would love to see a more detailed video on the chemical reactions involved but it’s Dow so that’s probably proprietary. Regardless I think you found a good balance between managing the corporate sponsorship and asking the questions that need answering.
I'd like to hear more about recycling low grade plastic by turning it into oil, as mechanical recycling degrades (shortens) plastic polymers so quickly that it is barely "cyclic" and rather just a little loopy.
Heat and pressure converts plastics into oils.
It is not "cost efficient" for our current uses of plastic so it is not overly utilized by corporate buyers and thus doesn't end up in the market 🤨.
And by use I mean packaging. The biggest use case of plastic that can easily be replaced with celluloid doped with a flame retardant.
Good to see you join in too. #teamtrees
It's good if #teamtrees videos continue coming out over time because most people have already forgotten about it already. 🤦
That sniff test reminded me of 'The Mad Woman of Chailot' 😆. "Petroleum." 😃 It is so neat to see you get behind and support Team Trees. It looks like a wonderful much needed organization.
Thank you Sally, and kudos to Dow.
Great industrial process! Thank you for showcasing it and thank you for the encouragement you bring to us!
There was someone who’s presentation I visited during high school and one of the products they showed off and even gave out was golf tees made from corn
I notice the cost of this process is not mentioned, so I'm assuming it's high, or at least higher than working from fossil fuels. Unless they are the cheapest option, such innovations will remain a niche process used in the small proportion of premium products purchased by people with the financial freedom to make ethical yet more expensive purchases. For the ethical process to become the majority form of plastic production, the "dirty" methods need to be priced out of the market by regulation such as carbon taxes.
I really hope that more companies get on board with this bio-naphtha. This is great! Also people, PLANT TREES, DON'T JUST CUT THEM!
Oh my God, this is wonderful. I am very happy that Dow is working to make the future better. We can only try right. As manufacturing technology gets better, we replace products with better products for the planet and Human society. There is no simple solution, but we all want the stuff we are used to right! It's a work in progress. But just think about what life would be like without plastic.
That was one of my favourite videos about the environment, you found a way to make it interesting, fun and serve a good cause. Thanks.
THANK YOU FOR SHARING- 20M EVERY YEAR!
As long as we don't start thinking at bulldozing the forests that are pulling CO² out of the air to keep up with demand is a better solution than using oil. Using the leftovers, as long as it isn't more damaging than using oil, is a good idea.
Thanks for this video - it was truly enlightening. p.s: I love your style! very approachable and you break complex things down. Keep it up!
I am interested to learn about this projects. I have potential bamboo material can be used to replace single plastic use. Can we discuss more in detail?
Great resource! Will help me with the game I'm working on. Hopefully I can sneak in some environmental stuff too!
Are their plans to create 3D printing filament from this?
Does this plastic react differently if it does get into the environment? Is it more biodegradable or are the bonds exactly like oil based plastics?
I always find it disingenuous when the consumer is blamed for much of the plastic. The end consumer has little choice. For example. Peppers are sold in a 3 pack in plastic wrapping that can't be recycled. You could buy 3 separate peppers but he the cost is something like £1.15 prepacked or 55p each so more expensive. Most consumers can't afford to spend the extra. The demand isn't consumer based but it is framed that way because it is made to look that way.
Other than being recyclable, this plastic isn't really any better or worse than other recyclable plastics. That's not the issue this process is trying to solve, though. This process is mean to reduce the damage to the environment in the manufacturing of the plastic itself, which is still a huge improvement.
Can bamboo chips do the same?
If it's so good, why is it not used?
Because it's getting researched...
this is sooo cool! if you can make plastics and biofuels from the byproducts of paper production, which in turn comes from the by product of timber production, then if the raw material is sustainably produced then it seems like itd be carbon neutral, or far far closer to it than plastics previously were. if we can improve and spread the process of recycling then this is real exciting!
Your videos are sensational and very informational. Keep up the great work !
Wow. All the other bioplastics I’m aware of are from food like corn and avocado pits and potatoes, and people have allergies to those, some of them deadly. Not that we shouldn’t be looking into every possible solution, but this is exciting and I wonder how big it could scale up with the rate of tree growth vs reducing demand for plastic etc. Pretty exciting, thanks for doing this vid!
I'm allergic to wood /s
Is Dow willing to take a hit to get the "circular economy" on plastics? The biggest polluters keep ducking this question. They won't own their contribution to the problems, monetarily.
Well, more easily obtainable (e.g. via recycling. Or via paper mills etc.) raw materials will always be a good investment for them in the long term. So they might not even have to take a huge hit with it? But I'm not an expert, and presumably at this point extracting and refining oil is still cheaper per gallon than bioplastics, otherwise *ALL* of the big companies would be all over it?
ask yourself - search - read - understand.... only at that point, comment
corporate.dow.com/en-us/news/press-releases/dow-to-help-lead-1-billion-global-alliance-to-end-plastic-waste-in-the-environment.html
So now they are cutting trees too to make plastic 😧
I'm not making an attack, but a criticism. Every individual does right, in the moment, in their eyes.
I'm curious about energy costs. If the kwh are greater to produce wood naphtha (including energy lost in transmission), as opposed to coal or petrol, than we'll hurt the environment less by our current system. Finding these resources and technologies is trivial compared to finding, collecting, and moving and utilizing the energy itself (which petrol makes very easy). If they've accounted for all the energy lost, than good on them, and I hope they benefit greatly from it; If not, and they're simply making a PR move, then I'd say unkind things.
As for recycling, that also centers around energy costs. The amount of energy we wasted in the US, recycling paper to sell to China is tremendous. On top of that, we end up with a toxic waste of inks that requires so much processing to bring to an environmentally safe level. Growing and transporting trees is considerably more efficient than recycling paper, but people still do it, despite the ecological destruction of paper recycling. With plastics, most centers don't care to inform people of what category plastics they accept (Here in the US we have a category system marked on almost all plastics). As a result, more resources are wasted transporting and sorting plastics than if they were just dumped. Recycling, as it is in the US, has always been a social job program, and, until recently, an easy way to get money off China.
With respect to Mr. Larson, I don't doubt that he himself is against the overuse of plastics, but when a DowDuPont regional manager is breathing down some distributor's neck about getting cut off because he's not moving enough product, that distributor is gonna want to put his kids through college before he starts to consider the environment. If they present a documented company policy, with case evidence of enforcement, only then will I believe such a vague statement of policy.
This is great content. Chemistry ftw
In finland, 150 million trees are planted per year!
Dang it Finland! Always innovating the way to the future! Gosh, like... gah!
damn, did not know UPM was doing this. Hope you enjoyed your trip here in Finland! :)
Oh btw, we also make a lot of biofuels.
A good video. It's hard to walk the fine line between hating on corporations (because that's the popular thing to do) and revealing the good things they are working on. Lots of your commenters missed the point (or were unable to understand words) that even if they believe plastics to be BAD, we still use plastic and it's better that the plastic we use be created sustainable rather than from petroleum. People seem to want everything to be a 100% solution when in fact incrementally solving pieces of the problem is the way that the world works. Good on you for sharing the new technologies in this video!
Also, never forget that 50% of the population is below median intelligence. Those people too comment on youtube videos. :)
If you could just somehow reverse the whole process and plastic to wood it would be way much better
I appreciate that there's a video on this topic, but as an environmentalist, I think this video is deceptive form of Greenwashing. If you produce a video funded by Dow, it will inevitably be a form of advertisement for Dow, not an unbiased report. Do a quick google search of "Dow chemical pollution" and you'll see what an awful history this company has. There were some "tough" questions but really not as tough as they could be.
I think the most important thing with regard to plastic is to reduce plastic use wherever possible. Even recycling plastics still results in waste that gets into the environment, because you can only recycle the same plastic material a small number of times. In the case where plastic is absolutely necessary, yes I do agree that making it from wood is much better than fossil fuels. But plastic is not sustainable, and we need to be honest about that and focus on finding alternatives to plastic.
In response to the FAQs, and the notion that we have to work with big companies to solve global warming isn't necessarily wrong, but Sally, I don't see how you can be an unbiased messenger when you are taking money from Dow. Untethered capitalism is a huge part of how we got into the climate crisis, and we need to be really skeptical when the same companies that got us into the crisis claim that they've come up with technology that's going to solve it.
Just wanted to say I love you and I love this! Will be sharing with everyone I know. I will also be researching more into Bio Plastics. Thx for always educating me.
3:59 Am I watching a cooking show
Same
Awesome and quite informative!
A great video! It would be better if we made plastics compatible with nature, as stray bits will always be getting loose. For the current crop of plastics, a deposit on plastic items works wonders for getting over 90% recycled. Harsh chemistry is currently the method employed, but we need to move away from hazardous chemicals and towards enzymes, microorganisms, and safer chemicals from a hazards standpoint. Enzymes can be engineered to break down structures at the molecular level, with less energy inputs and much less risk, and a diminishment of the need for caustic chemicals like sodium hydroxide, or strong acids like sulfuric acid. Let's green the whole supply chain, from forest to table! 💚 🌿 🍏 🌄
I swear I'll donate as soon as I get my next paycheck! #teamtrees
I don't know if i missed this but can bio-plastics be composted?
It took nature quite some time before it could break down lignin, but now we take it for granted. How would society change when some fungus started digesting just polyethylene?
But these plastics aren't biodegradable, so they'll still contribute to the same pollution and other environmental issues
(posted about a 15 months after video)
In sweden we do now (noticed it a few months ago for the first time) have crisp/chips-bags made out of finnish tall oil plastic - so this is now in consumer products.
The swedish press-release about it (dated aug 2020) is at www.mynewsdesk.com/se/orklasverige/pressreleases/orkla-lanserar-chipspaasar-med-fossilfri-plast-3028632 (google translate does a passable translation from swedish)
so where is this now?
Good video, still very skeptical of DOW, but perhaps they can be part of the solution... It's a start
The plastic they are producing and profiting off is ending up in our natural environments. Doesn't matter if its coming from trees or oil, it's still plastic and it's still awful.
Great video. Thank you.
We actually need to find a way ti turn plastic into wood
great video! very interesting! really love how all my favorite people on youtube are getting on this. it's fantastic.
Recycling in my country (Hungary) - against all attempts, is low in its efficiency. There still too much plastic go into landfills. Imho, the ultimate solution would be a plastic that doesn't release toxic fumes when burned. Then, even if I continue selecting the trash, I wouldn't mind others throwing it to communal trash, incinerating wouldn't be bad after all.
How safe is burning this bioplastic?
We have to start thinking globally and not as individuals. Lets face it, we need plastic. We have to start using it responsibly. Lets work on that too! Everyone of us rely's on plastic in our daily life. Same thing with cars. We need them. But they produce pollution. Should we all give up our cars? are willing to give up your? I doubt it. We cannot go back to horse's. We use technology as it comes to us from the engineers and scientists. When they come up with a better solution, we will use that. Our engineers and scientists have a big job and responsibility. Give them some love won't you?
When it burns does bioplastic release toxins like traditional plastic?
very good video, but you should put a mic on your guests because their voice is muddy
so the plastics made from this material is biodegradable?
#teamtrees let's do this
Inspirational! :)
Sorry, you can't donate in this country or region yet.
Google knows I'm poor . .
how many trees are being cut down compared to how many trees are being planted? and also as we know, it takes many years for trees to grow so how sustainable is this really?
but is this bioplastic recyclable or not? do we have the technology?
This looks same as cellulose acetate?
GHG nose still cannot be caught from opposite site.
Wouldn't wood-derived-plastic buried in a landfill be a form of carbon capture?
Other than the fact that this plastic is recyclable, it doesn't solve plastic waste issues anymore than other recyclable plastics. The process does help solve the problem of the manufacturing of plastics being harmful, which is still a good step forward.
@@p4r6g6777 I personally would rather have a world with less CO2 in the air than a world with less plastic in a landfill.
Naphtha is used to extract dmt.
Read
International
Environment
Laws
Where
Conversation
Of
Woods
To
Plastics
Is
Banned
Nothing here about biodegradability.
Point is drastically reduced carbon emissions by using an already existing byproducts that is indistinguishable from existing plastics and fully compatible because it is nearly identical.
Because they're focused on recycling. Biodegradability = carbon release.
Technically this will actually take out CO2 from the atmosphere instead of releasing it back into it again: Trees are not a permanent storage. As forests grow they store more and more carbon but eventually they reach a stage where old trees die and slowly rot away, releasing that carbon again, and new trees grow in their place, picking the carbon back up. It reaches an equilibrium where the stored carbon remains about equal and the forest doesn't take in any more overall.
But if you take wood and turn it into plastic which rots away more slowly, it'll remain that way for a potentially very long time. And a new tree could *still* grow in the old one's place. It's kind of a way to indefinitely increase a forest's storage.
That's not to say this doesn't have its own problems though. Clearly plastic waste is a huge issue, and plastic not ending up where it belongs is rather awful.
Alternatively, bio-degradable plastic made through this process would work in the sense that at least we aren't tapping the oil fields for that carbon. It'll remain about equal overall. The plastic rotting away would be the same deal, roughly, as wood doing that.
Kram1032 . This video was about making naphtha from lignin, which is Dow’s fee ticket to “green” credentials / they just need to give lip service to recycling, because it’s not their problem, and with lignin-naphtha, it’s all business as usual.
Sally’s done a great video, and at the beginning pointed out the appalling issues with biodiesels, but biodegradability should have been on topic here - but I imagine it wasn’t, because that’s not on Dow’s agenda - they can profit from the ambiguity of “bioplastic” which means for them “lignin-naphtha” for non-natural polymers but for many others means “natural polymers” which biodegrade.
Also there is the diesel cost of creating that pile of wood chips.
Yeah, it’s cute that plastics lock up Carbon, but that’s not a solution to carbonization of the atmosphere and oceans - we burn way more than we plasticize.
rubber + cellulose + bakelite = bioplastic made from rubber trees wood and rubber with bakelite
If I heard about this for a news article I would have thought it was Fake News.
I can't donate it shows "Sorry you can't donate in this country or region yet".
You can donate directly from teamtrees.org/
There is another team trees link in the description that might work better
Try teamtrees.org instead
"I literally have a PHD from Oxford..."
little humble brag....:)
Seems to have potential if:
We only use sustainable plantation plants
Actually recycle the material
Find more ways to make them degradable
Do notburn it: make marine plyvood or contraplac
What about bakelite?
That is the perfect thing to make global warming decrease
This is the song to search==#teamtree song
Lol what id be running all over that mountain too
You really should not have said "even though Dow may have been part of the problem." There is no "may" about it.
How is this any better than making it form fossil fuels? Fossil fuels are old plants that fossilized, if you make plastic out of them the co2 isnt released into the atmosphere same as if you make them from trees. I fail to see how this would reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
🕸🕷she gives science cuteness
i found this challenge through the hashtag! :D
#teamtrees can we see the planted trees?
Some are planted as seeds, so it depends. Also, they'll be planted all over the world, so it depends even more.
@@user-vn7ce5ig1z 20.000.000 trees and it depends
Most of them haven't been planted yet. The target completion date is in 2024, iirc. The Arbor Day Foundation has the responsibility for planting the trees. They have a good reputation.
Wait what side is she on?
Can someone please tell me why we're so focused on greenhouse gasses, while we continue to overlook the environmental toxicity timebomb that plastics are creating(?) Putting all our eggs into greenhouse gas reduction, is hardly going to matter when biological life/DNA synthesis succumbs to disease-related plastic toxicity.
isnt cellulose a plastic itseft? Why make a plastic out of a plastic?
Wood to plastic process is expensive
But
Downstream
Of
Petrochemical
Plastics
From
Granule
Economically
Viable
But
Dangerous for
Envoironment
6:45 _>"...replace one tonne of fossil fuels with one ton of bio naphtha, we are saving 2.86 tonnes of greenhouse gases."_
I have no idea how many tonnes of CO2 _"one tonne of fossil fuels"_ normally creates tho. Is he talking about a 90% reduction? 1%? 🤷
It's a bit of stoichiometry. If you start with one ton of fossil fuels, you can calculate based on how much oxygen it consumes how many tons of CO2 it will produce. Since fossil fuels are hydrocarbons, the vast bulk of their mass is carbon, with some hydrogen. When you burn them each carbon atom combines with two oxygen atoms to make one molecule of CO2. The weight of atoms are measured in atomic mass units. Carbon weighs 12 (mostly, it varies by isotope), each oxygen weighs 16. so each unit of carbon burned combines with more than double its own weight in oxygen to produce that amount of CO2, no atoms are created or destroyed.
So basically he's saying that because the fossil fuel was never used the carbon it contains was never bonded to oxygen to make CO2. Now the non fossil carbon used in this process will wind up as CO2, but since it came from a tree which consumed CO2 to build its own body that is not new carbon from the ground, it's just carbon getting back to the air.
-"We fight CO2 for helping the environment from global warming!"
-"How?"
-"By cutting trees!"
IIRC, these managed forests are an amazing carbon sink. When the trees are young and grow fast, they suck up a lot of carbon from the air, but as the trees mature and slow down the growing, the carbon sequestration slows also.
So growing, cutting down, and replanting fast growing forests should be a pretty good method of capturing carbon. As long as you don't release it back via burning or decomposing.
Why can't they do this the other way round where you then plastic into wood as plastic takes too lock to decompose but wood does not and can be use a fertilizer for plant, would that be better than wasting wood to make plastic as we have a plastic problem??