Toyota has announced that the Lexus CT200h is the first car in the world to use its Ecological Plastic bio-PET incorporating biological material derived from sugarcane, in this case to make a load space liner. The company claims that the plastic is more durable, tougher and shrink-resistant than previous bio-plastics; and being derived from sugarcane it is closer to being carbon neutral than conventional petroleum-derived plastics. In a future model the material is expected to cover 80% of the interior and in volume production it is expected that the bio-plastic will be of equivalent cost to the petroleum-derived version.
In many respects this is a laudable development. Other OEMs, notably PSA Peugeot Citroen, have been active in promoting the use of plastics that have, in various ways, improved environmental performance.
So what is wrong with that? Well, there is a minor criticism and a more fundamental criticism. The minor issue is that the applications for which this plastic is being considered have typically been ones that might also have previously featured a proportion of recycled plastic. Thus if the bio-plastic replaces the recycled plastic then the net gains are not quite as great as if it were petroleum-derived plastic being replaced. At present the bio-plastic element of Ecological Plastic refers to the 30% of PET by weight that is constituted by monoethylene glycol, the remaining 70% being terephthalic acid. It is a somewhat confusing message to claim the finished product is ecological.
Put simply, being derived from plant products does not necessarily make something ecological.
This, however, is a quibble. There is rather more concern over the terminology of Ecological Plastic. Put simply, being derived from plant products does not necessarily make something ecological. After all, we do not habitually talk about leather being ‘ecological’ and yet it could be on these terms. Sugarcane is a wonderful crop, and for sure can bring with it significant advantages in terms of carbon capture, but it is essentially a monoculture crop that displaces ecologically-diverse natural environmental features. In this respect the industry at large and Toyota in particular may want to find a different language and terminology to talk about the achievements the company has made with this material.
Moreover, there is a real danger that this description leaves little room for improvement. Say, for example, a future generation plastic is made from a bio-ethanol feedstock that is also much more bio-degradable than that which is made today. How is this new material to be described? Is it to become ‘super-ecological plastic’?
Of course OEMs and plastic suppliers need to differentiate their innovations in this area as with many others. Fundamentally, there is a massive improvement in sustainability terms if a scarce and depleting fixed resource such as petroleum is replaced with a renewable resource such as sugarcane, notwithstanding various important limits and caveats. On the other hand, there must be care over not extending the claims made, directly or implicitly. Moreover, there must be caution over confusing the public or the legislators over such issues. It is just possible, therefore, that the term Ecological Plastic has stepped slightly over that line that defines acceptable rhetoric.
Dr Peter Wells is a Reader at Cardiff Business School, where he is a Co-Director of the Centre for Automotive Industry Research and leads the automotive industry research programme within BRASS, also in Cardiff University. Dr Wells is also a director of AutomotiveWorld.com’s sister website AWPresenter.com. He can be contacted on wellspe@cardiff.ac.uk.
The opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Automotive World Ltd.
