And they knew all along - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/15/recycling-plastics-producers-report
this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2024
186 points (100.0% liked)
Environment
3920 readers
55 users here now
Environmental and ecological discussion, particularly of things like weather and other natural phenomena (especially if they're not breaking news).
See also our Nature and Gardening community for discussion centered around things like hiking, animals in their natural habitat, and gardening (urban or rural).
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's partially because of cost, new plastic is cheaper than trying to recover old. But very few plastics can be truly recycled chemically, much being reformed for other purposes. Glass and metals were always a better environmental choice (with their own limitations too), but plastic is so cheap and versatile it's hard to compete. Not just plastics - just a look around the household imagining the lack of petroleum products, it's amazing how it's everywhere. Yet another dead end we've gotten ourselves into.
Glass is usually broken and melted again. Lots of energy required. Is it really better carbon-footprint-wise?
Crushed recycled glass (aka cullet) actually decreases the amount of energy required to create new glass products, as well as demonstrably lowering their CO2 impact. While it's easy to assume that there's a lot of waste because there's a lot of heat involved, keep in mind that virgin material requires far more processing and even more heat and energy to result in a final product.
Unlike plastics, the problems with achieving a profitable (remember, capitalism) glass recycling stream are much more cultural and intrinsic to the subject nation. Here's some further info on why the US, where I live, is dragging so far behind in this area: https://cen.acs.org/materials/inorganic-chemistry/glass-recycling-US-broken/97/i6
There have been several detailed analyses comparing the carbon footprints and overall environmental impacts of glass and plastic (specifically PET) bottles. For instance, a study published in Sustainability used Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology to assess the environmental sustainability of two packaging alternatives for extra virgin olive oil: glass bottles and PET bottles made from 100% recycled PET granulate. The study found that the recycled PET system was more environmentally sustainable than the glass system across all impact categories considered, particularly in terms of global warming potential, particulate formation, terrestrial acidification, and fossil fuel scarcity. The impacts of the R-PET were lower than 40% compared to those of the glass system, with the glass system responsible for significantly higher CO2 equivalents due to the high weight of the glass bottle affecting both production and distribution phases. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/4/3665
Another study presented in Recycling conducted a comparative LCA of two alternative packaging systems for drinking water: reusable glass bottles and polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles. The results indicated that PET bottles were the most sustainable option for natural water across many impact categories. For sparkling water, the environmental impacts of the two packaging systems were similar, and the most environmentally sound solution varied depending on the specific impact category considered. This study highlighted the importance of considering the number of reuses of a single glass bottle and the distribution distance, as these factors could significantly influence which packaging option is more sustainable.
https://www.mdpi.com/2313-4321/6/3/50
Furthermore, research compiled in ResearchGate also compared the LCA of PET and glass bottles, underscoring that plastics generally have a lower carbon footprint and lesser environmental impact compared to glass packaging material, when considering the entire lifecycle from raw material transportation to disposal.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314100348_Comparison_of_Life_Cycle_Assessment_of_PET_Bottle_and_Glass_Bottle
I have to credit ChatGPT4 for this answer.
Credit, or a warning?
From my understanding a big part of the problem with PET is the availability, either because it's such a small percentage of plastic and demand is too great, or because it gets lost among all the rest and so is mixed or ruined for recycling.
Honestly the debate on which material is better totally ignores the real problem - consumption demand. Reduce used to be the first 'R', but it was not friendly to the capitalistic mindset or an exploding population, so Recycling became the big focus along with the subtle blaming of the consumer for not being THE solution when they didn't participate.
Yes.
Initially it was giving me answer that glass is better, but when I asked for the sources it searched the internet and gave me that answer. I guess there is a lot of text (just general articles) about recycling and glass, saying one thing, but the actual studies published in journals show different picture, at least with PET.
In general, I found very helpful to ask the same question different ways and ask for the sources, otherwise it will give "common knowledge", which can be wrong, or misleading.
To take a contrarian view, the plastics wins handily in the reduce scenario. The plastic required to make a bottle is somewhere around 1/25 of the material required compared to glass. It's high tensile strength and fracture toughness means a huge reduction in material processed per container.
The flip side to that is convenience - the ability carry and dispose of a 1/2 ounce plastic container, vs a pound of glass container - makes it ideal for conditions where you are less likely to recycle.
I didn't know chatGPT could spit out sources, that's neat. I'll have to give it a shot some time. Did you specifically ask for that or did it do that on its own?
The PET vs Glass study is fascinating, especially since the result favors PET by a significant margin. That's a massive disconnect from the findings of the OP study. It basically makes PET out to be a fantastic option, but assuming it can be so clean, it's even more infuriating that so little plastic gets recycled. I also wonder what the breakdown of PET recycling is, vs plastics in general? Is it just a tiny portion of plastic waste overall, or does it fail to reach the recycling stream? Something about that situation stinks, and not just of uncleaned bottles.
Considering that we have to reduce virgin material use in every sector, the more recyclable option should be the clear winner. Its frustrating to see this level of waste.
Usually you have to ask for the sources. It does not give the sources unless it's searches internet.
I think so. Plastic needs tons of processing to go from raw material to plastic. You're basically (in terms of glass) cutting out all the energy spent mining for sand and (in terms of plastic) cutting out all the energy spent searching for crude/natural gas/coal, extracting crude, taking it to be refined, taking it somewhere else to be turned into a polymer, having the plastic pellets moved to where they're melted into the product, and then having them melted from plastic pellets to whatever needs made.
In the cases where plastic is a byproduct of gasoline production (which I think exists?)... Maybe it's not worse in a sense (?) but we really shouldn't be producing gasoline at the rates we are now.
At the very least, glass is a much more renewable resource (at least pending advancements in polymer manufacturing). It also doesn't leech into things like plastic does WRT food contamination.
Not to mention pollution wise glass is far better (there's no great pacific garbage patch made of glass).