Rethinking Plastic: The Surprising Truth About Greenhouse Gas Emissions

We've been distracted for too long by the "waste argument" and have lost focus on the more critical issue of Green House Gas emissions.

Yes, waste (of all materials) is still a problem that must be solved.

But if we don't solve the worsening GHG issue - resulting in global warming - then we won't be around to solve the waste issues.

Many of the current policies to eliminate plastic have looked at the waste challenge in isolation of the overall impact on the planet. They don't compare the lifecycle of the products being selected to replace plastic.

In many - but not all - cases, plastics have a lower greenhouse gas (GHG) impact compared to the proposed alternative materials like paper, glass or aluminium, especially when looking at the entire lifecycle, including production, transport, and end-of-life processes.

Question: Which of these beverage containers do you think has the lower overall impact (carbon footprint) on our planet?

Here's the results

From the evidence based research, on a gms per litre comparison, PET plastic has a much lower overall Green House Gas impact compared to; glass, aluminium and steel cans.

It's time to rethink plastics before it's too late!

Here’s how plastic, when used in beverage packaging can have a lower carbon footprint compared to other materials:

1. Production Energy

- Plastic: Producing plastics, especially lightweight polymers like PET, often requires less energy compared to materials like glass or metal. For instance, glass and aluminium manufacturing involve energy-intensive processes, such as melting sand at high temperatures (glass) or refining and smelting (aluminium).

- Steel/Glass: Manufacturing these materials often results in higher carbon emissions due to the energy required for extraction, refining, and high-temperature processing.

2. Weight and Transportation

- Plastic: One of the key advantages of plastic is its light weight. For example, PET beverage containers are lightweight compared to steel cans and glass bottles. This reduces fuel consumption during transportation, lowering the overall carbon footprint. When shipping beverages long distances, then the use of lightweight packaging can make a significant difference in GHG emissions.

- Steel/Glass: These materials are much heavier and bulkier, requiring more energy to transport per litre. For businesses that ship beverages globally, this can add up to a much larger carbon impact.

3. End of Life and Recycling

- Plastic: Most PET beverage containers are designed to be part of a circular economy, where they can be recycled. While plastic has historically had lower recycling rates compared to other materials like glass and aluminium, advances in circular design, materials resource management and collection systems (including consumer deposit schemes) are making a positive impact.

- Steel/Glass: Steel and glass have higher recycling rates in some regions. However, recycling processes for these materials are often energy-intensive, especially when glass needs to be remelted at high temperatures or steel needs to be refined. This can offset some of the GHG savings gained from their recyclability.

4. Durability and Reuse

- Plastic: In applications like beverage packaging, the plastic is usually designed for one-way use, meaning they do not need to be washed and returned for reuse. This avoids the emissions related to cleaning chemicals, water use, and transportation for returns, all of which contribute to GHG emissions in the lifecycle of returnable containers.

- Returnable Containers: Glass bottles and steel cans, may be reusable, however require a return journey (doubling transportation emissions in some cases) and energy/water/labour to be cleaned and sterilized before reuse. The longer lifecycle of these containers helps mitigate some of this, but there are diminishing returns, especially when long transport distances are involved.

Conclusion

While plastic has traditionally been (and is still) seen as less environmentally friendly, when compared across certain lifecycle stages and different use cases, science backed data (not hype) shows that lightweight, transport-friendly plastics can offer a lower GHG footprint compared to glass, steel, or aluminium.