Chloor-vrij en het milieu (engels)
PVC en chloor-vrije alternatieven (engels)
PVC, politiek en wetenschap (engels)
Conclusie (engels)
De levenscyclus van PVC en
alternatieven vergeleken
Volledige levenscyclus van PVC
en alternatieven in verschillende toepassingen
PVC en additieven
Greenpeace leaflet 'Chlorine is everywhere' (in Dutch) - summer 1994.
Except if you think that chlorine is created by the devil
himself (see Greenpeace and chlorine),
there is no reason to assume that chlorine-free materials are
better for the environment by definition. That depends on the
height of emissions, the kind of emissions, the amount of (toxic)
waste, the energy use and use of exhausting raw materials during
manufacturing, use and deposit.
To make some comparisons possible, a so called 'Life Cycle
Analysis' (LCA) can be made, which compares different materials,
or methods (e.g. reuse against recycling), for the same purpose on
a lot of environmental impacts like air- and waterpollution,
energy use, waste management, etc... Although this method is still
under continuous progress of refinement and not yet ideal, if
properly carried out, it is the only method where you can
compare materials in a scientific way on environmental impact.
In general, these LCA's carried out by scientific institutes and
followed by a group composed of government, industry and
environmentalists gives the best balanced outcome.
In ALL well balanced LCA's, PVC comes out as the
material with the lowest use of energy and exhausting raw
materials compared with other plastics (good for sustainable
development we think) and one of the least polluting, far better
than a lot of 'classic' alternatives. See Life Cycle Analyses of PVC and
alternatives.
As we have mentioned already in Chlorine
and risk, the risk for workers and people living near
chlorine and PVC-factories or -transport is not higher than for
other human activities, on the contrary. As we have mentioned in Chlorine and cancer, The
cancerogenity of the emissions of a large chlorine and PVC-factory
is less than what one truck emits as soot and the amount
of dioxins emitted are equal to what one (Greenpeace-)ship emits
during working hours. And the total amount of dioxins released by
the production, use, recycling, deposit and accidental fires of
PVC is lower than for equivalent uses of wood, steel,
glass, aluminium, copper, lead, etc..., etc... And the amount of
dioxins emitted by municipal incinerators has nothing to do with
the amount of chlorine or PVC incinerated, but is only a matter of
quality of the incinerator. See Sources
of dioxins.
With all this information, we don't see any obvious environmental
reason for any exchange to other materials. If Greenpeace insists
on an exchange, then that is only based on anti-chlorine hate or
with other words: fundamentalism.
Under pressure of Greenpeace, other environmental groups and 'green' parties or politicians, measures were taken in several European towns, states and countries against the use of PVC. In not one case this was based on science. On the contrary, when the same governments asked for a scientific assesment of the use of PVC and alternatives, this turned always out in favor of PVC.
In the Netherlands, PVC was (voluntary) restricted for use in
packing, because of the fear for more dioxins when burned in
incinerators. After thorough research, this was found not to be
right and the restriction is lifted now.
In Belgium there was an ecotax voted on PVC bottles for mineral
water. After two years of investigation, the scientific analyses
of PVC, PET and glass bottles didn't give any reason to exclude
one of these materials on environmental grounds, so the ecotax is
withdrawn now.
A yearslong study of the German Enquete-Kommission of the
Bundestag (the German parliament) revealed, that there was no
reason to exchange PVC for alternatives, '...an exchange of PVC by
other materials is not recommended. That gives the danger of a
shift of problems, even a possible worse situation'. A lot of
towns and states in Germany are reducing or omitting their
anti-PVC-statements now.
At this moment Greenpeace launches heavy anti-PVC campaigns in
Sweden, Denmark and Spain, where they are supported by 'green'
politicians, against all scientific evidence, including the many
governmental conducted scientific reports of a lot of countries.
In Sweden there was a meeting between industry, scientists,
politicians and Greenpeace about the future of PVC. All
scientists present, including those of the Swedish EPA, refuted a
ban on PVC. Only the environmental minister stands behind
Greenpeace...
Of course the actions of Greenpeace will do damage to the image of
PVC. Of course that will cost market shares and employment. But
for what? Who will pay the damage? Who takes the responsability?
There is no reason to exchange PVC for chlorine-free alternatives, if that has no benefit for the environment. In almost all cases, well-balanced LCA's demonstrate that PVC is one of the least polluting materials for any application. So there is more reason to exchange alternatives for PVC!
Laatste aanpassing: 14 september 1996.
Finale aanpassing: 31 maart 2019.
