Boston-Based Chemical Company Novomer Develops ECo-friendly Polymer

Pictured above: Eco-friendly Polymers. Photograph courtesy of Pixabay.

By Siona Ahuja ’24  

Staff Writer 

This November, the Boston-based chemical company Novomer launched its newest innovation: Rinnovo, a new class of compostable polymers. Conventionally, plastics are polymers made from carbon and a host of hazardous petrochemicals, and its production is extremely energy intensive, meaning it emits large amounts of CO2. Novomer’s technology produces biodegradable and compostable polymers that use almost half the materials that regular polymers require. The other processing ingredient is waste CO2 –– gas waste that is extracted from industrial processes –– which goes through a process that refines carbon molecules for use in manufacturing. This process, using the company’s trademark technology, Novo 22 Catalyst, enables the creation of “high performing, carbon efficient, cost efficient” material. Because of waste CO2’s affordability, the finished polymer is inexpensive, unlike other bioplastics, some of which can be 20 to 50 percent costlier than normal plastics. 

In an interview with Waste360, Novomer CEO Jeff Uhrig talked about Rinnovo’s compatibility with nature. He explained that their polymers are made from a polyhydroxyalkanoate backbone, which is produced by various organisms like algae. Since these are already found in nature, the ecosystem is prepared to disintegrate the final product following its usage. Its biodegradable nature allows it to reduce aquatic toxicity and waste sent to landfills or incinerators, as is routine with non-biodegradable polymers.  

As with Novomer’s polymers, all biodegradable plastics are less harmful substitutes to plastics made from fossil fuels. They can be used in a wide variety of ways, from packaging to waste collection products. Despite rules and bans against certain non-biodegradable plastic, especially single-use plastic, the production and distribution of biodegradable “bioplastics” is very low. According to a 2018 study, only 4,409,245 tons of plastic, just above 1 percent of global annual plastic manufacturing, is biodegradable. More so, a “bioplastic” label does not guarantee eco-friendliness because there are several issues within this family of polymers. 

The term “bioplastic” can mean plastics made out of natural ingredients like sugarcane or naturally made plastics that are biodegradable. However, not all bioplastics are biodegradable, and they leach toxins into the environment for years. Plastics that do biodegrade can also be made from synthesizing fossil fuel products. A rarer subset of bioplastics are compostable, which can be further segregated into home compostable plastics or industrially compostable plastics, the majority of which fall into the latter category.

Out of the 6.3 billion tons of plastic humankind has mass produced and thrown away since the 1950s, only a meager amount — 600 million tons — has been recycled while the rest lies in landfills, on the soil or in the oceans. 

While biodegradable plastics curb the plastic problem on land to an extent, their biodegradable properties are inefficient in seas. Thick plastics that line coffee cups and cup lids, clear plastic tumblers, drinking straws and other food packaging are expected to act like traditional plastic in seawater and won’t break down at all, severely damaging the marine ecosystem. By the midcentury, researchers expect the amount of plastic in the ocean to overtake the fish.

In addition, littered plastics also cause the decay of plastics into microplastics. In an experiment, Imogen Napper of the University of Plymouth concluded that natural factors like UV rays, sunlight, rain and soil can cause bioplastics to break down into smaller pieces that can cause more harm. Animals can unconsciously ingest these pieces and choke or the pieces can block their digestive tracts, resulting in death. 

In 2015, the United Nations Environment Programme published a report on the misconceptions and concerns regarding biodegradable plastics. It concluded that “the adoption of plastic products labelled as ‘biodegradable’ will not bring about a significant decrease either in the quantity of plastic entering the ocean or the risk of physical and chemical impacts on the marine environment, on the balance of current scientific evidence.” 

Shining a Light on the Plastic Industry

By Abby Wester ’22

Staff Writer

Plastic is both a central part of our society and a suffocating pollutant to the earth. Almost anything we buy comes wrapped in plastic, we bag our food in plastic and we wear variations of plastic. Not only does plastic end up littering our oceans and neighborhoods, but over 99 percent of it is made from chemicals derived from harmful fossil fuels. By 2015, over 8.3 billion tons of plastic had been produced, roughly equivalent to the weight of one billion elephants or 80 million blue whales. While this commodity has widespread use, there is little public knowledge about where our plastic goes when we toss it. 

We have all been taught the environmentalist slogan “reduce, reuse, recycle.” This slogan is often accompanied by the calming implication that by throwing your plastic water bottle in a recycling bin, you are helping save Mother Earth. However, in 2014, at the peak of annual recycling in the U.S., only 9.5 percent of plastic was actually recycled. Recent investigations by NPR and the PBS series “Frontline” reported that America’s largest oil and gas companies have known all along that recycling plastic would never be a viable alternative to dumping it in landfills. NPR and “Frontline” detailed that, in a 1974 speech, an unnamed industry insider wrote, “There is serious doubt that [recycling plastic] can ever be made viable on an economic basis.” 

While big oil and gas executives learned of the improbability of recycling on a large scale, commercials still aired across the country that, according to NPR, carried the message of “Plastic is special, and the consumer should recycle it.” These commercials were paid for by the same oil and gas companies that knew the industry was doomed to fail, such as Exxon, Chevron, Dow and DuPont. 

For a while, the U.S. was able to hide its growing plastic problem and ineffective recycling programs by dumping plastic waste in other countries, primarily China. But in 2017, China announced a national policy called National Sword to halt the import of recyclable waste from other countries. The U.S. was then forced to reckon with its own plastic addiction. According to The Intercept, after the implementation of National Sword, the U.S. started burning “six times the amount of plastic it’s recycling,” which, in turn, emits toxic chemicals into the atmosphere, including black carbon, which contributes to climate change.  

Other countries, such as Kenya, have implemented groundbreaking plastic bans, looking to limit the polluter. However, the U.S. oil and gas companies have tried to sully these efforts as well. According to a New York Times report, U.S. fossil fuel companies are attempting to lobby Kenya to reverse its plastic ban and continue importing foreign plastic waste. The battle is now between environmentalists in Kenya, the U.S. and abroad and the fossil fuel lobbyists who are backed by the hundred billion dollar industry.

While it is important to limit personal plastic use and continue to recycle plastics when possible, the issue of plastics extends beyond that. The towering oil and gas industry has held environmentalism hostage for decades with the goal of producing plastic, profits and waste.