BETA
This is a BETA experience. You may opt-out by clicking here

More From Forbes

Edit Story

Could This Innovation Be An Answer To Fashion’s Plastic Problem?

Following
This article is more than 3 years old.

Plastic has come to be considered the scourge of our modern consumerist lifestyles. Recent bans on single-use plastic and the devastating effect of plastic in our oceans have made the problem impossible to ignore. Add to this the growing use of plastic-based textiles in clothing— polyester, nylon, and acrylic, which account for 63% of all fibers—and the public backlash against fast fashion’s disposable synthetic clothing seems justified. But not only is plastic a pollutant, but it is also derived from non-renewable crude oil and is a byproduct of the oil and gas industry. The meteoric rise of plastic since its invention in 1939 lies in its cheap and highly effective performance qualities for use in not only clothing but for carpets, cosmetics, cars, and tires. It’s everywhere. Oil and gas companies own the majority of the plastic production industry, and to tackle plastic production and use is to tackle the fossil fuel industry as a whole.

As global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions rise, the pressure is mounting to find renewable alternatives to fossil-fuels, (both as a source of energy and materials like nylon) and synthetic biology may offer a sustainable alternative. Pressure from consumers is also growing, with expectations of more sustainable materials and transparency over where those materials come from. One bioengineering company has partnered with a fashion textile producer to develop and commercially test a ‘world first’ nylon derived from renewable plant matter instead of fossil-fuels, claiming a drastic reduction in GHG emissions applicable to the entire nylon sector. How does the use of plants instead of oil to produce plastic weigh up against plastic polluting our environment? Can both environmental problems be solved? Which one is more urgent and what role does fashion play in solving it?

Chemical innovators Genomatica have developed a fermentation process that turns plant sugars derived from corn, wheat, cassava, and other starchy plants into caprolactam—the key ingredient in nylon. This ingredient is then processed into pellets and fibers for industrial use using the traditional methods already in existence. To test their first ton of bio-based nylon Genomatica has partnered with Aquafil, a prominent nylon manufacturer whose work in sustainability has been well documented. Genomatica and Aquafil will now work together to implement and refine their respective technologies through a demonstration program to create large quantities of bio-based nylon, likely to be commercially available in the latter half of 2021. Aquafil will build and operate the downstream operations of this large-scale demonstration plant at its facility in Slovenia, where it will convert Genomatica’s bio-based caprolactam ‘precursor’ into commercial-quality nylon-6 yarns, films, and engineered plastics. The partners contend that the produced material can replace traditional nylon, which generates upwards of 60 million tons of GHG emissions annually.  

In an interview with Genomatica CEO Christophe Schilling, he explained that following their most recent bio-based innovation, the Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) demonstrated a 51% reduction in carbon emissions, and their new nylon precursor will “likely be in the same ballpark.” The potential to slash the emissions associated with material production is monumental, but the polluting nature of nylon in the environment remains. Whilst the raw material ‘feedstock’ is plants instead of fossil-fuels, the chemical structure of the resulting nylon is the same as the original. This means the performance and characteristics of the resulting nylon, are the same as the original. This is great news in terms of nylon’s high tensile strength, elastic properties, and abrasion resistance, but bad news in terms of its harmful microplastic shedding and toxicity. In simple terms, it appears from the initial assessment that bio-based nylon could drastically reduce GHG emissions compared to traditional oil-based production, however, it remains a problematic environmental pollutant.

I put this to Schilling, who explained that the problem they are tackling is at the start of the cycle. “We are doing two things at Genomatica: using renewable feedstocks (from widely used ingredients including corn), and using synthetic biology as opposed to traditional chemistry.” He did, however, mention that they are exploring an as yet not public end of life solution relying on biotechnology. The fact remains, though, that the urgent environmental imperatives laid out in the Paris Agreement demand that we must drastically reduce GHG emissions as a primary target. So does this mean that we should ignore the plastic pollution problem? No. But perhaps this is an initial step towards a more sustainable synthetic polymer value chain that, if taken to scale as a result of the partnership between Genomatica and Aquafil, offers a far better alternative to the 5 million tons of nylon-6 produced annually.  

The challenge for such initiatives may be that global consumers have developed a collective loathing of plastic that tends to outweigh their response to the more imminent crisis of climate change induced by global warming.  Scientists have indicated that this may be due to the tangibility of plastic and its omnipresence in our lives, whereas climate change remains an unquantifiable one and personally difficult to change. By contrast, we can all recycle our household plastic or reject a plastic bag in favor of a paper one (which, perhaps surprisingly to some, has a comparatively higher environmental impact).

If we are to innovate and problem-solve our way to remaining within the planetary bounds laid out by the Paris Agreement, we must slash GHG emissions as a primary target. This does not diminish the impact plastics are having on our environment, and the development of biodegradable and recyclable plastics is part of the remit of a 12 partner consortium (the second I am announcing within a week) named EFFECTIVE. The consortium spans 7 countries across Europe and the US, including Aquafil and Novamont in Italy, H&M in Sweden, Vaude in Germany, and Genomatica in the US. The group seeks to “demonstrate innovative and economically viable routes for the production of bio-based polyamides and polyesters from renewable feedstocks to obtain fibers and films with enhanced properties, market competitiveness, and increased sustainability.” Specific objectives include demonstrating the recyclability of bio-based nylons and creating value from biodegradable polyester-based products at the end-of-their-life through the production of compost and energy. It’s these objectives that address the need for a circular model that maintains the value of the material at end-of-life, rather than treating it as landfill waste, as we do so predominantly now.

On the subject of innovation to steer the plastics industry in a new direction, despite its origins in the oil and gas industry, Schilling said: “An innovation mentality is needed (and) lots of interests have to be navigated. The most uninhibited interests are (held by) brand owners and tech companies.” He went on to explain that “customer (sustainability) demands are clear” and that brands need to respond to this. On the subject of nylon’s environmental problems, Schilling admitted that the “challenge right now is nylon is not perfect, but there are (no materials) that are. Brands will benefit from being transparent about this. Better solutions are emerging and they need to be part of that.”

Bio-based nylon is a step towards a lower impact nylon supply chain in carbon emission terms, but the microplastic pollution problem needs another, no doubt interconnected, solution. This innovation demonstrates that our bias against plastic may lead us to avoid tackling our biggest environmental crisis—climate change—in favor of campaigning about and demanding the elimination of plastics. Plastics are bad, but we also need to consider the worst-case scenario of an overheated planet with mass extinction and loss of biodiversity.

Follow me on Twitter or LinkedInCheck out my website