Page 1/23

Page 2/23

New Kinpo GroupNew Kinpo GroupNew Kinpo GroupNew Kinpo Group

Green Information JournalGreen Information JournalGreen Information JournalGreen Information Journal

目錄目錄目錄目錄／／／／CONTENTSCONTENTSCONTENTSCONTENTS

No. News Page

1 新金寶集團綠色產品政策

NKG Green Product Policy

3

4

2 智慧電池如何創造有效的能源管理

How smart batteries create efficient data centers

5

6

3 美國 EPA電子廢棄物回收商之規範

The Complex Business of Recycling E-Waste

9

10

4 生物基化學品(biobased-chemicals)：當心綠色製品仍有毒

Bio-based chemicals: When green is toxic

13

16

5 星巴克推出$1 可重複使用之咖啡杯

How Starbucks plans to reduce its paper cup waste

21

22

Page 3/23

新金寶集團綠色產品政策

新金寶集團致力於成為環境保護最完善的公司之一，並努力在產品開發、製造及

服務上獲得員工、客戶、股東、供應商及社會之認同。

為達成使命，我們展開如下的要求：

� 符合國際法規

� 達成客戶要求

� 應用環保化設計

� 持續改善綠色管理系統

藉由達成上述要求，新金寶集團可確保流通到市場上的產品對於人類及環境是無

害的風險。

‧資料來源：新金寶集團總經理室 2009 年 11 月 12 日發文

Page 4/23

NKG Green Product Policy

New Kinpo Group(NKG) strives to be one of the best companies

with commitment to environment protection through our efforts

and achievements in product developments, manufacturing and

services recognized by NKG's stakeholders, employees, customers,

suppliers and the public.

Our missions for the commitment:

� Compliance to International Legislations

� Fulfillment for Customer Requirements

� Implementation of Green Product Design Principles

� Continuous Improvement in the Green Product

Management System

New Kinpo Group ensures that the products we deliver to the

market are safe and no-harm to both human and environment.

‧Information from：NKG General Manager office issued on 2009.11.12

Page 5/23

智慧電池如何創造有效的能源管理

提供企業雲端平台服務之 IT供應商Akamai已開發智慧電池降低企業伺服器於

用電尖峰時段之電力需求，進而降低營運成本。

Akamai 之智慧電池已於位在紐約的數據中心進行試驗，結果顯示使用智慧電池

後，電力供給從每月 432KW降至 381KW，電力使用降幅約 12%。

智慧電池被放置在伺服器或伺服器機架內，用以偵測伺服器電力使用情形，並且

於偵測值超過閾值時，進行供電取代原本電網的供電，直至伺服器電力使用降至

閾值以下；而智慧電池將會利用電力離峰時段，進行充電。

Akamai 假設該智慧電池成本為 100~300美元/kWh，壽命為 3~5 年，相較

不斷電系統 UPS(Uninterruptible Power Supply, UPS)驅動一台伺服器 5

分鐘，智慧電池可節省 7％的電費；若智慧電池使用 40 分鐘，可節省電費達

14％。此外，智慧電池採用鉛蓄電池(Lead-acid Battery)，可完全回收。

就企業角度而言，智慧電池能有效進行電力管理，可同時讓更多伺服器進行運

轉，以提供更好的服務；就環境面來說，智慧電池可降低電量尖峰時段負載，進

而降低電力系統規模，實為兼具經濟與環保的方法。

‧資料來源：Green Citizen

Page 6/23

How smart batteries create efficient data

centers

The electric grid experiences the same daily peak demand issues

as our freeways, seeing pronounced surges during the critical

parts of the day. This makes providing power more expensive

because extra power plants have to be built to meet this peak

demand.

Servers that provide the world's Internet content are also their

busiest during this peak power period. And with the Internet

consuming two percent of the world's energy and predicted to

surpass the airline industry by 2020, the problem is only getting

worse. Furthermore, companies that have large IT deployments are

being challenged by rapid expansion and rising energy costs.

For companies like Akamai that host their IT infrastructure in

third-party collocation data centers, energy is typically priced

based on the total supplied power in kilowatts (KW) charged at a

fixed rate in $/KW, for example 50KW at $200/KW per month,

similar to a fixed number of minutes for a mobile phone plan. While

the supplied power is fixed, the power drawn by the servers vary

with server activity which peaks and lulls daily. Energy costs could

be reduced if the server peak-power demand, and hence the

supplied power, can be lowered.

One of the innovative ways Akamai is looking at mitigating this

challenge and reducing network operational costs is to reduce the

grid-based power supplied to its servers during peak demand by

supplementing with batteries and recharging the batteries at night

when most energy consumers are asleep and power production is

cheap and plentiful.

A recently published research paper by Ramesh Sitaraman, Akamai

Fellow and UMass professor, written in collaboration with

researchers at Penn State and BBN, evaluates using smart

Page 7/23

batteries in an Internet-scale distributed network such as the

Akamai Network. The smart batteries that are placed inside a

server or within a server rack detect when a server's power draw

crosses a threshold level, as it becomes busier, and then supply

battery power until the server power draw drops below the

threshold. The batteries would recharge at night or whenever

energy and server demand are low.

The effect would be that the peak power draw from the electricity

grid of a cluster of servers would flatten and lessen, with peak

demand shifting from the electricity grid to the batteries.

A trial of aggregate server power demand over a month in an

Akamai New York data center showed smart batteries dropped the

required power supply from 432 KW to 381 KW.

Despite the control intelligence of these batteries, the chemistry

is conventional lead-acid, similar to a deep-cycle marine batteries.

Lead-acid batteries are fully recyclable.

The capital cost of the battery is a function of the energy storage

capacity of the battery in kilowatt-hours (kWh) which determines

how long the battery can charge the server. This study uses

reasonable estimates ranging from $100-300/kWh and a lifespan

ranging from three-to-five years.

Batteries don’t have to supply power for very long to achieve a

compelling peak power reduction benefit. Even a battery that can

power a server for only five minutes, comparable to those

batteries used in uninterruptable power supply (UPS) systems

today, can provide a 7 percent power savings, while a larger

40-minute battery supply can save up to 14 percent.

Furthermore, most of the power savings are achievable with a small

cycle rate of one full discharge/recharge cycle every three days

which is conducive to a five-year battery life. Power savings

improve demonstrably as servers get better at power

management.

Page 8/23

In the near term, cost savings are derived from a reduction in the

power supplied to each server cluster -- power circuit size. Using

smart batteries to reduce peak power loads would reduce the

required power circuit size and, hence, the cost of each circuit.

An alternate but equivalent way of viewing the benefit is that

batteries allow more servers to be powered using the same power

supply than before. (A key assumption is that the batteries could

be fit into an existing server rack without taking up additional data

center floor space and costs.)

Longer term as the smart grid matures and electric utilities

implement time-of-day energy pricing, electricity prices will be more

expensive during the day when demand is high and cheaper at night.

Batteries make even more sense with time-of-day pricing since

energy can be stored during the cheap off-peak hours and

discharged to servers during the expensive peak hours. In addition,

large-scale adoption of this power demand-shifting technique would

increase demand for wind energy which typically has higher

production capacity at night, and help slow the need to build power

plants to meet peak energy demand.

Dr. Sitaraman emphasized "Our research helps establish batteries

as a key part of the architecture of Internet-scale distributed

networks. In addition to providing a distributed UPS function,

batteries can also provide a cost reduction by decreasing the

required power supply. Further, as servers become more

energy-efficient and as batteries become cheaper and better, the

case for batteries will only become more compelling."

‧Information from：Green Citizen

Page 9/23

美國 EPA 電子廢棄物回收商之規範

根據美國環保署近期統計資料顯示，美國人平均每年丟棄 474 萬台電腦、272

萬台電視及 141 萬台手機，但大約只有 1/4 的電子產品會被收集回收。

許多州政府致力於解決棄置電子產品之問題，有些回收商收取每件美金 10 元的

回收費用，有些廠商則免費回收電子廢棄產品，表示回收商收取的費用差異很

大，其處理廢棄物之過程不同，反而增加環境污染。

美國環保署為促進電子廢棄物回收及降低回收商品質不一的回收程序所造成的

環境污染，透過推動回收商認證，使生產者或民眾在選擇電子廢棄物回收商時有

所依據，確保回收鏈中的每個環節皆能妥善處置，避免造成環境衝擊及操作人員

健康危害。

目 前 美 國 環 保 署 認 可 的 回 收 商 驗 證 標 準 包 含 「 e-Stewards 」 及

「R2(Responsibility Recycling, R2)」。這兩項回收標準差異如下表。

項目 e-Stewards R2

緣起 由美國非營利組織 Basel Action

Network 巴塞爾行動網路)發起

由美國環保署資助所成立之

非營利組織推行

環境管理系統基礎 須有 ISO 14001 驗證 不必要

適用區域 全球 美國

有害廢棄物出口 禁止 有條件許可

有毒物掩埋及焚燒 禁止 有條件許可

粉碎含汞裝置 禁止 有條件許可

稽核員訓練 有 無

‧資料來源：BusinessWeek

Page 10/23

The Complex Business of Recycling E-Waste

IBM’s massive recycling facilities are more like rehabilitation

centers. Most of the computers, printers, and servers—castoffs

from IBM’s offices, along with equipment previously leased to

corporate customers—are refurbished and resold. Some are

salvaged for parts.

But inevitably some electronics are too old to resuscitate. Therein

lies one of the biggest conundrums of the digital age: How to

properly dispose of e-waste, which contains toxic materials such

as lead, mercury, and cadmium. “It’s easy to buy something, but it’s

hard to get rid of it,” says Richard Dicks, general manager for the

IBM division that handles the triage.

Americans get rid of 47.4 million computers, 27.2 million televisions,

and 141 million mobile devices annually, according to the latest

figures from the Environmental Protection Agency. Only a quarter

of all those devices are collected for recycling.

Many states have passed laws that dictate how to dispose of

electronics. Most prohibit dumping them in landfills and require that

they be recycled. California’s laws, for example, are among the most

stringent. Anyone buying a monitor in the state pays a recycling

fee that funds e-waste disposal.

Choosing a recycler isn’t as easy as it may seem. There are many

options, such as free electronics collection sites, haulers that send

trucks to pick up computers, and manufacturer take-back

programs. But their environmental rigor varies. Horror stories of

U.S. electronics shipped to developing nations and improperly

stripped of valuable metals are common.

In China, Ghana, and India, some recyclers do little to prevent the

release of toxics materials. Workers use acid to etch metals from

circuit boards, polluting the environment with heavy metals, and

burn the plastic covering off of wires to get at the copper

Page 11/23

underneath.

One way to find a responsible recycler is to check whether it is

certified. The EPA endorses two standards programs, e-Stewards

and R2, both of which require regular independent audits of

participating recyclers to ensure they follow good practices. But

there is some debate about the definition of good practices.

E-Stewards prohibits recyclers from exporting electronics for

processing, for example, while R2 allows it as long those facilities

meet certain standards. “You can have a poor recycler in the U.S.

just as easily as a really good recycler in China,” says Corey

Dehmey, assistant to the executive director at R2 Solutions, the

nonprofit that oversees the R2 standard.

Dell, the computer maker, along with other companies, has pushed

for federal legislation that would ban the export of e-waste.

Efforts to pass such bills in Congress have failed, however.

Companies should pay close attention to data security when

tossing out their electronics. Corporate information does not

simply disappear when a device is no longer needed. Busineses that

allow consumer information to leak out face the risk of civil lawsuits.

Health-care and financial companies operate under the extra

burden of federal laws that prescribe stiff fines for failing to store

and dispose of consumer data properly.

In general, large corporations do a good job of ensuring that their

discarded electronics are properly disposed of, says Richard Fuller,

president of the Blacksmith Institute, an environmental

organization that focuses on industrial pollution. The big

companies typically have the financial resources, employ a staff

focused on sustainability issues, and recognize that being exposed

as a careless polluter is bad for business. “It’s been really quite a

shift in the corporate world to make sure that e-waste is correctly

managed,” Fuller says.

Small and midsize businesses, however, are far more likely to fall

short, he says. Many simply toss their old computers in the

Page 12/23

dumpster or hire irresponsible haulers to take them away.

Recyclers’ fees vary widely. Some charge nothing and recoup their

costs entirely by reselling the scraps. But services that offer

no-cost hauling may be more likely to cut corners. Expect to pay

roughly $10 per item for a higher-end recycler, Fuller says.

At IBM, dealing with used equipment is a huge effort. The

volume—38,000 pieces a week—is enough to keep up to 350

employees and thousands of contractors busy in 22 plants around

the globe. IBM replaces about 100,000 employee desktop

computers annually along with the usual assortment of other

electronics. Customers that lease IBM equipment go through even

more.

Among the first steps IBM takes when electronics arrive at a

facility is to assess its potential value. What is its condition? Can

it be refurbished and resold? Around 90 percent of the “assets,”

in IBM-speak, pass the test and get a second life. Like many

recyclers, IBM inspects electronics it receives for hard drives. Any

that are found are wiped of data (even if they’ve been cleaned

prior to their delivery) or shredded.

Equipment that’s too old or broken to go back on the market is

dismantled and harvested of parts and precious metals, such as

gold, which is used in circuitry. The vast majority of the material

is recycled. Less than 1 percent is incinerated or sent to a landfill,

according to IBM.

IBM is committed to doing the work responsibly and is keenly

interested in protecting its reputation, Dicks says. Equipment is

dismantled or resold in the region where it originates rather than

sent overseas, he says. Partners that ultimately end up in

possession of the scraps are audited on a regular basis. “This is

a good business for IBM to be in economically, and this is a good

business to be in environmentally,” he says.

‧Information from：BusinessWeek

Page 13/23

生物基化學品(biobased-chemicals)：當心綠色製品

仍有毒

使用後可作成堆肥之杯子係由甘蔗製成的聚乙烯塑料製作之植物瓶。生物塑膠和

其他生物基化學品–由植物而非石油製成–能大幅減少產品的碳足跡。

品牌商驅動生物基製品的需求，以幫助滿足企業可持續發展的目標。生物基以經

濟意識來防止高價的原油和易揮發的石化燃料市場。但是，基於生物基就夠了

嗎？消費者希望更安全的產品。若化學成分對健康是有害的，只是把碳從油中產

生變成從植物產生，並不會讓產品更安全。如果有毒的石化產品是採用可再生的

生物質，消費者會反抗嗎？我們來探討這個挑戰。

10 年前，嘉吉(Cargill)公司推出的 NatureWorks，將玉米澱粉轉換成聚乳酸

（PLA），也是第一個生物高聚物和石化塑料與纖維的正面競爭。PLA面對 12

個綠色化學原則得到很好的分數，美國環境保署也因此給予該公司國家環境安全

獎。從那時起，生物基的需求呈爆炸性增長。雖然生物基產品僅占所有產品的幾

個百分比，但分析師預估 10 年內其年增長率可達 20％，甚至市占率達到 90

％在技術上已經可行。

• 對於環境的主要益處

把植物變成產品可以從兩方面減少我們對於化石燃料的依賴。製造聚乳酸所產生

的溫室氣體，相較於石化材料，如聚乙烯對苯二甲酸酯(PET)或聚苯乙烯，減少

百分之六十。其他的生物基化學品，在生命循環評估上也顯示了相同的結果。若

追蹤生物基製品更上游之製造過程，則其減緩氣候變遷之效益更大。生物質的物

質碳足跡量為零。這是因為植物修復大氣中二氧化碳的時間，大致和生物製品最

後釋放二氧化碳的時間相同。但是，石化產品是從數百萬年前的化石原料製成。

石油化工產品的最終處置，將造成人為的氣候變化。思考一下物質碳的優勢。每

一百磅的生物高聚物，替代化石基聚乙烯，於產品生命週期間能減少 314 磅的

二氧化碳排放。替換石油化學製品能減少約 230 磅的溫室氣體排放。雖然氣候

溫度增加是事實，但市場急著推出生物基製品也帶來了一些原本就存在的問題和

新產生的疑慮。有些人質疑，從農產品獲得的生物基產品是否真的為永續發展原

料。從密集的土地使用和化學輸入來提高食物價格，他們認為好處是微乎其微

的，甚至是有害的。這些疑慮對於生物燃料，例如酒精，也許是對的。但是使用

在消費者的產品中的生物基塑膠和化學物是物質，而非燃料。他們想要取代的石

油化學製品僅占石油和瓦斯消耗的百分之五。下一代的原料，如森林產品和農業

廢棄物，將會比農作物更具備永續性發展。也有人提出停產的議題。有些生物塑

Page 14/23

膠是可再生資源，但是當變成廢棄物後，能蒐集並轉成施肥堆的系統太少了。目

前只有約百分之十的塑膠被回收。但是，回收基礎建設的缺乏是所有合成物質和

塑膠的問題，不能真的怪罪於生物基產品。

• 產生新的擔憂

此外，對於生物基產品，我想提出新的擔憂。新浮現的生物基化學產業可能重蹈

許多 20 世紀有毒化學的覆轍。這是因為任何的有毒化學物都可以從生物質製

成，而不是從石油或瓦斯。有兩個趨勢困擾著我：

首先，聯邦政府缺少管理化學品的主權。雖然大家皆同意有 37 年歷史的美國有

毒物質控制法案(TSCA)是過時的，但國會一直無法修復已破損的聯邦化學安全

系統，有毒化學製造商持續的反對，阻撓了安全化學規範的實施。直到 TSCA

繼續改良，有毒石油化學製品將會被大量的得到施行機會。

第二，新產生的生物基化學產業，目標只是順道替代現有的化學市場，而不是成

為新的生物基分子產業。這是因為建立新的生物高聚物市場，如 PLA，價格依

然太高。

一個不討喜的合作正在醞釀著。現存的有毒石油化學製品，在破碎的規範系統

下，仍受到喜好愛用。現在，新產業尋求相同的化學品，不是從生物質，而是從

石油。同時，市場阻撓和鬆綁的法規不鼓勵引進新的綠色化學品。目前為止，再

生化學原料的熱潮忽略了生物基物質生命週期的健康及安全概況。製造生物基

PVC 塑膠提供了極端的例子。要製造 PVC(一種有毒的塑膠)，需加入兩種致癌

物，灌入樹脂，充滿有毒添加物及留下製造後即棄置的氯化廢棄物的足跡。用可

再生的碳，替代 PVC 裡的石油，很難使生命週期綠化。

追求生物基 PET 塑膠的趨勢也引起相似的擔憂。可口可樂突破性的植物瓶，僅

含 20%的碳為可再生。該瓶罐為 PET 塑膠，但只有一種生物基成分是由甘蔗

所製成，其餘的化石碳則是由 p-xylene 製成，該成分在新生動物的研究中，會

造成腦部損傷。製造生物基 p-xylene 的競賽正進行中，期能滿足品牌商的需求。

在 2011 年，可口可樂宣布一項計畫，欲上市百分之百為生物 PET 的瓶子。

要達到這樣的目標，該公司開始與 Nile、Procter & Gamble、Ford、Heinz

合作發展新的植物性 PET 科技。Virent 公司欲發展生物質替代具有毒性的

BTX 碳氫化合物-苯(benzene):會對人類造成癌症、甲苯(toluene):會傷害重製

和發展、二甲苯 (xylenes)。生物基有毒化學物並非解決辦法。我們需要設計化

學物和化學流程，對於大眾健康和環境本質上是安全的。

• 商業的秘訣

Page 15/23

若把我也算是生物基的愛好者，有些重要的商業建議要提供給生物基追隨者，包

括品牌商、生物基新創公司、農業鉅子、及主要的化學製造商的生物基部門。運

用綠色化學檢視確認你的目標市場及材料選擇，需要使用 GreenScreen 或是

類似的工具做為基準，藉以篩選生物基物質來取代有害物。要完全避開令人高度

懷疑的化學物質。在大量投資其他受到懷疑的化學物質前要再三深思。即使這些

化學物質是生物基的，但這樣的市場不會是永續性的，因為可能被大眾查覺且受

到法規的限制。支持安全化學規範來確保合理的 TSCA 改革。現存的法律在大

多數的有毒石化產品下，缺乏安全，且不公平。化學政策的改良是無可避免的了，

拼湊出來的國家政策及混亂的市場動力將驅動改良。當聯邦改良最後被推翻時，

合理的化學規範需求將橫掃整個國家。如果你落在規範曲線的後頭，就不會有市

占率，更別提是否為生物基。真正的商業機會在產品和物質中，兩者需要為可再

生且安全的，不管是對人或地球的生命循環。藉由推廣生物基綠色化學物，業界

將能走得更遠，並避免被消費者和有毒物規範所淘汰。

‧資料來源：Greenbiz

Page 16/23

Bio-based chemicals: When green is toxic

Compostable cups. The PlantBottle. Polyethylene plastic from

sugar cane. Bioplastics and other biobased chemicals – made from

plants rather than petroleum – can slash a product’s carbon

footprint.

Brand owners are driving demand for bioproducts to help meet

corporate sustainability goals. And biobased makes economic

sense as a hedge against the high price of crude and volatile fossil

fuel markets.

But is bio-based enough? Consumers want safer products too.

Simply replacing the carbon from oil with carbon from plants won't

necessarily make a product safer, if the chemical in question is

hazardous to health. If toxic petrochemicals are made with

renewable biomass, will customers revolt? Let’s explore the

challenge.

Ten years ago, Cargill launched NatureWorks to convert

cornstarch to polylactic acid (PLA), the first biopolymer to

compete head-on with petrochemical plastics and fibers. PLA

scored so well against all 12 principles of green chemistry that the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency gave the company a

prestigious national award for environmental safety.

Since then, biobased demand has exploded. Although just a few

percent of all plastics are biobased today, analysts predict rapid

annual growth will claim 20 percent market share within a decade.

Getting to 90 percent is already technically feasible.

• Major Benefits to Climate

Turning plants into products can reduce our dependence on fossil

fuels in two ways. Manufacturing PLA produces 60 percent less

greenhouse gases than the petrochemical plastics such as PET

and polystyrene. Life cycle assessments show similar reductions

for other biobased chemicals.

Page 17/23

But bioproducts reap even greater climate benefits upstream of

the production process. Biomass has a material carbon footprint

of zero. That’s because plants fix carbon dioxide from the

atmosphere in roughly the same timeframe (years) that

greenhouse gases are released at the end of the useful life of

bioproducts. But petrochemical products are made from fossil

feedstocks formed millions of years ago. The eventual disposal of

petro-products adds to man-made climate change.

Consider the material carbon advantage. Every hundred pounds

of biopolymer that replaces fossil-based polyethylene avoids 314

pounds of carbon dioxide emissions over the life of the product.

Substituting for petrochemical PET reduces greenhouse gas

emissions by about 230 pounds.

Although the climate gains are real, the market rush to

bioproducts has raised some old questions and a new concern.

Some have questioned whether biobased materials from

agricultural crops can ever be a truly sustainable feedstock. From

energy intensive land use and chemical inputs to rising food costs,

they argue that the benefits are marginal or worse.

Those concerns may be valid for biofuels such as ethanol. But

biobased plastics and chemicals used in consumer products are

materials, not fuels. The petrochemicals they aim to replace only

account for about five percent of oil and gas consumption. And

the next generation feedstocks, such as forest products and

agricultural waste, are more sustainable than food crops.

Others have raised end-of-life issues. Some bioplastics are

biodegradable, but too few systems exist to collect and compost

those products when they become waste. And only about 10

percent of plastics are currently recycled. But those

infrastructure gaps plague all compostable materials and all

plastics; you can’t really blame bioproducts.

Page 18/23

• … in with the New Concern

Instead, I want to raise a brand new concern about bioproducts.

Left unchecked, the emerging biobased chemicals industry could

repeat many of the toxic chemical mistakes of the 20th century.

That’s because just about any toxic chemical can be made from

biomass instead of oil or gas. Two related trends trouble me.

First, the federal government lacks meaningful authority to

regulate chemicals. Everyone agrees that the 37-year old Toxic

Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA) is obsolete. Yet,

Congress has repeatedly failed to fix our broken federal chemical

safety system. Relentless opposition by toxic chemical

manufacturers has thwarted passage of the Safe Chemicals Act.

Until TSCA reform succeeds, toxic petrochemicals will largely get

a free ride, with few questions asked.

Second, the emerging biobased chemicals industry has targeted

drop-in replacements for existing chemical markets rather than

new biobased molecules. That’s because building markets for new

biopolymers like PLA remains too expensive in the short run for

many.

A nasty synergy is brewing. Existing toxic petrochemicals are

unfairly favored under our broken regulatory system. Now industry

seeks to make those very same chemicals except with biomass

instead of petroleum. Meanwhile, market barriers and lax regulation

discourage introduction of new greener chemistries.

So far, the rush to renewable chemical feedstocks has largely

ignored the health and safety profile of biobased materials across

their lifecycle.

Plans to produce biobased PVC plastic provide an extreme example.

To make PVC, the poison plastic, add two carcinogens, pump the

resin full of toxic additives and leave a trail of chlorinated waste

from production and disposal. Replacing the petroleum in PVC with

renewable carbon hardly greens its lifecycle.

Page 19/23

The current pursuit of biobased PET plastic raises a similar

concern. In Coca-Cola’s breakthrough PlantBottle, only 20 percent

of the carbon is renewable. The bottle is PET plastic but with just

one biobased ingredient made from sugar cane. The rest is fossil

carbon from p-xylene, a hazardous chemical linked to brain damage

in newborn animal studies.

A race is underway to produce biobased p-xylene to meet brand

owner demand. In 2011, Coca-Cola announced a plan to bring a 100

percent bio-PET bottle to market. To get there, they launched a

new Plant PET Technology Collaborative with Nike, Procter &

Gamble, Ford and Heinz.

At least one company, Virent, aims to make the whole suite of toxic

BTX hydrocarbons from biomass: benzene (causes cancer in

people), toluene (harms reproduction and development) and xylenes.

Biobased toxic chemicals are not the answer. As a society we need

to design chemicals and chemical processes that are inherently

safe for public health and the environment.

• Tips for Business

Counting myself as one of the new biobased enthusiasts, I have

some sage business advice for my fellow travelers among the brand

owners, start-up biobased companies, agricultural giants and

biobased divisions of major chemical manufacturers.

Apply a green chemistry lens to your target market and material

selection. Use the GreenScreenTM or similar tool to benchmark the

hazards associated with the chemicals you aim to replace with

biobased substitutes. Avoid chemicals of high concern entirely.

Think twice about making major investments in other chemicals of

concern. Such markets will not be sustainable once public

awareness and regulatory attention catch up to you, even when

these chemicals are biobased.

Support the Safe Chemicals Act to ensure meaningful TSCA

reform. The existing law unfairly grandfathered in most toxic

Page 20/23

petrochemicals without scrutiny when it passed. Chemical policy

reform is inevitable, driven by a patchwork quilt of state policies

and chaotic market movement away from toxic chemicals. When

federal reform finally breaks, a backlog of demand for meaningful

chemical regulation will sweep the nation. If you’re caught behind

the regulatory curve, your market share may be washed away,

regardless of whether it’s biobased.

The real business opportunity lies in products and materials that

are both renewable and safe for people and the planet across their

lifecycle. By advancing biobased green chemistry, industry can ride

two waves longer, and avoid being wiped out by the inevitable cross

current of consumer alarm and toxic regulation.

‧Information from：Greenbiz

Page 21/23

星巴克推出$1 可重複使用之咖啡杯

星巴克每年生產四億個杯子，期望找尋合作夥伴來建立一套杯子的回收機制。

2012年11月星巴克在美國西北地區的600家分店嘗試推出可重複使用之咖

啡杯，來改善環境與改變顧客使用一次性咖啡杯之習慣，其試用結果廣受消費者

喜愛，使用數量增至 26%。

星巴克將此種做法擴大推廣至美國全國及加拿大各分店，並計畫於 2015 年使

用塑料咖啡杯販賣飲料達 5%。

可重複使用之塑料咖啡杯由中國製造，成本不足 1 元，種類分為中杯及大杯兩

種，外部皆印有星巴克的標誌。每次顧客用這種杯子續杯，可以獲得 10 分錢折

扣，若使用 10 次相當於購買塑料咖啡杯的價格。

‧資料來源：Greenbiz

Page 22/23

How Starbucks plans to reduce its paper cup

waste

Starbucks is seeking to serve greener refills by selling cheap,

reusable plastic cups to replace some of the billions of paper cups

handed out in stores each year.

The world's largest coffee shop chain began offering the so-called

"personal tumblers" for $1 a piece across its stores in the U.S. and

Canada yesterday.

The move is the latest promotion by Starbucks to reduce waste

sent to landfill. Customers who bring their own cups already receive

a discount on their drinks in stores globally.

According to Starbucks' latest sustainability report, the company

requires approximately four billion cups globally each year, the

majority of which are handed out in disposable paper cups – many

of which are not recycled.

In 2008, the company set a goal to serve a quarter of all its drinks

in reusable plastic cups by 2015, and has promoted them in the

past by offering free coffee to customers who brought their own

cups.

However, Starbucks was forced to revise its target down to five

percent by 2015 last year after finding the initial 25 percent

target too challenging.

The company said 1.9 percent of drinks were sold in reusable cups

in 2011, meaning customers brought their own cups into stores

more than 34 million times. As a result, more than 1.5 million pounds

of paper waste were saved from landfill.

‧Information from：Greenbiz

Page 23/23

GGGGGGGGrrrrrrrroooooooouuuuuuuupppppppp QQQQQQQQAAAAAAAA DDDDDDDDiiiiiiiivvvvvvvviiiiiiiissssssssiiiiiiiioooooooonnnnnnnn