Plastics Are Better for the Climate Than Aluminum and Glass, Actually
Producing plastics from fossil fuels emits a lot of carbon dioxide, but a new study finds the life cycle emissions are actually lower than glass and aluminum.

"Plastics are the new coal," declares Beyond Plastics. "Pollution from the plastics industry is a major force behind the heating of the planet," reports The Hill. The Natural Resources Defense Council says "reducing plastic production is critical to combatting climate change."
Producing plastics from fossil fuels emits a lot of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which contributes to warming the planet. An April study by researchers at the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory estimates that in 2019 "global production of primary plastics generated about 2.24 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent," which represents 5.3 percent of total global greenhouse gas emissions. So switching to plastic alternatives would help slow man-made global warming, right?
Not so fast, says a new study in Environmental Science & Technology, which finds that "replacing plastics with alternatives is worse for greenhouse gas emissions in most cases." The European researchers report that in "15 of the 16 applications a plastic product incurs fewer greenhouse gas emissions than their alternatives."
The researchers considered emissions from production, transportation, use, and end-of-life disposal, including landfilling, incineration, recycling, and reuse. Calculating the product life cycles, plastic products release 10 percent to 90 percent fewer emissions than do plausible alternatives—often because it takes less energy to make and transport them.
Take the perennial plastic vs. paper conundrum about grocery bags. In the U.S., more than 500 cities and 12 states have banned plastic grocery bags. However, the researchers find that plastic grocery bags emit 80 percent fewer greenhouse gases than paper bags. Producing paper bags emits three times the greenhouse gases of plastic ones, and transportation emissions are higher because paper bags weigh six times more than plastic bags. Additionally, paper bags emit globe-warming methane as they rot in landfills.
Alternatives to plastic bottles are aluminum cans and glass bottles. Even though aluminum cans are often recycled, the researchers find that over their life cycle, they emit twice as many greenhouse gases as plastic bottles. Glass bottles emit three times more.
The United Nations is currently negotiating a global plastic pollution treaty. One option being considered is a global ban on "short-lived and single-use plastic products," which would likely include foam trays wrapped in thin film plastics used for packaging foods such as pork and beef. The researchers compare those packages with butcher paper and find that, including production and food spoilage emissions, using butcher paper wrapping emits 35 percent more greenhouse gases than plastics do.
In municipal construction, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) sewer pipes are compared to pipes made with concrete and ductile iron. PVC pipes emit 45 percent fewer greenhouse gases than concrete pipes do, and 35 percent less than iron pipes. In residential construction, pipes made with polyethylene (the most widely used commodity plastic) are marginally better than copper pipes, emitting 3 percent fewer greenhouse gases.
Plastic dining sets produce 50 percent fewer emissions than do wooden ones, due to differences in raw materials, manufacturing, transport, and weight. High-density polyethylene automobile fuel tanks weigh so much less than steel ones do that the fuel savings over their lifetimes amount to 90 percent fewer greenhouse gas emissions. Polyethylene terephthalate/nylon carpets emit 80 percent fewer greenhouse gases than wool carpets do.
The researchers did identify one case in which the likely alternative to plastics emits fewer greenhouse gases: 55-gallon industrial steel drums. Because steel drums last longer and are generally recycled, they emit 30 percent fewer greenhouse gases over their lifetimes than comparable plastic ones do.
Conventional alternatives for current plastics are generally a lot worse with respect to greenhouse gas emissions, the study suggests. The researchers conclude that "any action taken or policy employed to reduce the impacts of plastics needs to be examined carefully to make sure that greenhouse gas emissions are not unintentionally increased through a shift to more emission-intensive alternative materials."
The good news is that some companies and researchers are developing nearly endlessly recyclable plastics. Currently, UBQ Materials turns unsorted household wastes including single-use plastics into thermoplastics that can be subsequently recycled as many as five times—a process that cuts greenhouse gas emissions by more than 90 percent. In addition, researchers at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory have developed an "infinitely recyclable" bio-based plastic called polydiketoenamine that cuts greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 98 percent compared to conventional plastics.
As the debate over plastics and their alternatives continues, it's crucial to consider the full environmental impact of our choices and embrace innovations that actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect our planet.
This article originally appeared in print under the headline "Plastics Are Better for the Climate."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The material of our packaging is not the problem. The problem is that we create so much garbage and everything about the way we deal with that is garbage. Sorting through household garbage by hand – and then shipping it around the world to poor countries to ‘recycle’ materials – where they then dump it into the ocean because it isn’t really recyclable. That’s all a scam based on mispricing of resources, transportation, and trade – not some real economic notion of resources.
People who use plastic shouldn't be allowed to go to hospitals if the hospitals are busy right JFree?
Several years ago, I was visiting the Grand Canyon National Park. You could not buy water in a plastic bottle. It was available only in aluminum cans because they wanted to reduce the amount of plastic in the park.
BUT... you could buy Coke, Diet Coke, Powerade, etc. in plastic bottles at multiple locations. These bottles have much thicker plastic than typical bottled water.
That didn't seem like a very serious effort to reduce plastic in the park.
They must have been using THE SCIENCE.
Including the resident shaman.
The problem isn't just C02 emissions. The problem is that unlike glass, aluminum or steel, microplastics are getting in the food chain and are now found inside our bodies. What we need are degradable plastics that harmlessly decompose in time. As it stands, a plastic bottle takes 450 years to decompose in a landfill.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230103-how-plastic-is-getting-into-our-food
https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/23/health/plastics-in-brain-wellness/index.html
Those are of no concern to the high priests of progressive marxism, at least for now. Next week they'll pivot back to plastics bad and demand recall live in mud huts and Ron will be cheering their sage decision.
So they are in your body. And?
The claims that microplastics are "in your body" boil down to "that sounds icky". There is no reputuable research showing that they are actually bad for you. The very factors that make them slow to decompose in a landfill makes them resistant to decomposition everywhere else.
But people were healthier and lived longer 300 years ago before plastic stuff!
Sadly, there are people who actually believe that.
No, people 300 years ago weren’t healthier. But in some measurable ways, people born 60 years ago were healthier. And there’s good reason to think it’s due to environmental contamination with chemicals that were never manufactured until recently.
It sometimes happens that a civilization adopts a technology that works well, but has unforeseen health consequences. Like the use of lead compounds to keep gasoline cars from knocking.
Hormone mimicking compounds, plasticizers, and nano-plastics could very easily be an example of that. So could aluminum, though the jury is out on that; (It may be that Alzheimers causes the brain to accumulate aluminum, rather than the other way around.)
Point of order, Aluminium is in fact bioaccumulative, and there are some interesting correlations between Al levels in the brain and various disorders, including Alzheimers.
point of odor, Lisa smells.
Aluminum has been proven not to cause Alzheimer's disease.
It is hard to imagine why Aluminum would do anything to anyone. It is one of the most common elements in the earth's crust. We had to evolve so that it is nontoxic. The only real problem is (1) primary Aluminum takes a huge amount of electricity to produce, and (2) Aluminum dust does really nasty things to lungs (as does most nontoxic dust).
BTW I am not related to my namesake who co-discovered the process for extracting metallic Aluminum from bauxite.
And FWIW Aluminum is the only consumer product that is consistently recycled.
This is not how many people feel, so it must be wrong. Don't you democracy at all?
For something to be believed it has to be made believable. If it doesn't excite a sense of virtue or at least an "ah ha" moment, they wont' buy it or vote for it.
This is the basis of politics and policy, as far as public perception is concerned. And as we know, perception is everything.
MORE TESTING NEEDED!
No. No, it is not.
The best part of the "environmentalist" religion is it "changes" like the "climate" and takes-shape to whatever the Marxists want to control next with Gov-Guns in your face.
... as long as the weather changes...
Remember all those history stories about how stupid a nation can get? Kill all the Jews for salvation, etc, etc, etc... They had nothing on the stupidity of "environmentalists". Kill all human resources ... "because the weather changes."
The panic over global climate warming change is about power, not science or the actual environment.
As it is with abortion, DEI, inequality, gender affirmation, de-colonizing, immigration, stakeholder capitalism, anti-racism, feminism, and every other progressive "issue".
Literally no one argues that plastics are bad because of the emissions profile.
Its because a quarter of produced plastic ends up in the ocean, it takes several hundred years to biodegrade, and it breaks up into microplastics that make their way into to food chain.
This is typical environment = emissions and nothing else BS that you typically hear from leftists. Read a book.
Then the problem isn't plastics, but fishing nets, littering/poor sanitation, and stuff that falls off ships.
Emissions of CO2 may not be the biggest problem, but it's a pretty good proxy for energy efficiency, which I think most will agree is a good thing to pursue.
What percentage of plastic in the ocean comes from the US, or even Western countries?
The more prosperous a culture becomes, the more their citizens tend to care about keeping the environment as pollution-free as possible.
I was just in Chile this past week. Not a poor country but much less wealthy than the US. Far more beverage containers were glass than in the US.
It’s hilarious how all the progs want us to stop using plastics, gas stoves, fossil fuels, etc so we can all live in the garden of Eden that was pre-industrial civilization, when the average life expectancy was about 35, and war and disease were constants in most peoples daily lives.
Well, not everybody.
Wait till the Malthusians figure out that exponential population growth is the only chance there is to keep their precious Social Security ponzi scheme turning...
Then it's just a matter of hoping they someday figure out how much of the rest of their dogma is mutually nullifying.
Reason once again defending (corporate) freedom.
The problem isn't the "life-cycle" emissions of glass vs. aluminum vs. plastic, it's the plastic breaking down and polluting everything at the micro level. No one is worried about micro-glass or micro-aluminum.
FYI- Aluminum cans are lined with plastic. So too are most of the clothes you wear. The plastic pollution in oceans mostly comes from China and other countries that dump it there.
On the contrary, some people are worried about micro-aluminum. As noted above, new research shows that aluminum is bioaccumulative and may be implicated in neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimers.
Micro-plastics, on the other hand, do get into everything but so what? The very things that make them so slow to decompose in oceans, landfills, etc, makes it difficult for them to react biologically.
"Micro-glass" is just sand. It's been around our entire evolutionary history. Aluminum and plastic haven't.
Aluminum compounds have been around forever. It's the second-most common metal on Earth, and most rocks are a mixture of silicon, iron, and aluminum oxides.
Significant quantities of metallic aluminum have only existed for about a century, but unless you're standing near a grinder that's shaping aluminum and inhaling the dust straight from it, you'll never come into contact with metallic aluminum. Any aluminum surface that is exposed to air oxidizes within seconds, and then it's chemically the same as a rock.
And here we are yet again, ceding the Statist ground and quibbling over the details. How's 'bout we just tell them all to go jump in a lake and leave us the hell alone?
Because the cost of the environmental impact study of all those bodies in the lake is prohibitive?
The leftist "environmentalists believe all human activity on earth will cause our planet to be destroyed.
Their plan to "save the planet" is to eliminate 90% of the world's population, put the other ten percent as their slaves as they munch on caviar, sip champagne, drive around in their limousines, fly in their Leer jets and brag about how they "saved the planet."
As the debate over plastics and their alternatives continues, it's crucial to consider the full environmental impact of our choices and embrace innovations that actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect our planet.
Greenhouse gas emissions are a major concern, certainly. But so is the question of microplastics on human and ecological health. Everything we make and do has impacts on our environment, which means that it impacts us.
Yet somehow the "environmental" impacts haven't ever shown up...
A BS Belief in a doomsday is all you whack-jobs have... and it never shows up. Didn't show up in 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024....................
Let me guess. It'll all come smashing down in 2025?
F'En idiots that can't acknowledge *reality* that goes against their complete BS.
All the folks in Texas Louisiana and Florida who have lost their homes from flooding snd storms might disagree. Ditto all the folks in California who have lost the homes to wildfires. These disaster events are coming fast and furious. And climate change deniers are shocked SHOCKED that they have to pay more for insurance.
That said, more people actually die from cold than from heat. Nobody wants to talk about this.
That's because fools build their houses in the way of natural disasters - and fools in Congress subsidize their insurance. There's no increase in storms. Where there's more perceived flooding, there's more construction in flood plains or on the coast, but floods have always been common there. California does have more wildfires - but that's not due to a change in weather, but to cutting down the forests and leaving highly flammable shrubs and waste, and now to state policies that don't allow home owners and communities to get out there and clear the land of this fuel.
OH, you expect people the THINK?
Ever chatted with an environmentalist? Gotta tell ya Bunky, thinking is not usually the strong suit.
It is not a science, it is a religion.
I've met very conservative religious zealots who are better critical thinkers.
^THIS. At least they'll admit they don't have all the answers.
Carbon makes up 0.03% of the atmosphere; it is a mere footnote, a trailing indicator of long-term atmospheric trends whose main drivers are inconceivably large and galactically beyond our ability to affect, such as solar radiation, solar winds, cosmic rays, and orbital tilt and oscillation. So while you're quixotically tilting at plastic grocery bags, don't forget that almost 90% of fossil fuel use is for energy production. Only 10 to 15% is used in the production of plastics and similar. And while you're uselessly obsessing about my preferred method of grocery conveyance, don't forget that China has over 1,000 coal-fired energy plants and another 300 in the works. India is 2nd with almost 300. The U.S. in on track to have less than 50 coal plants by 2030. As if that matters. Mirroring the mental genius of this article, I foresee next month's article on a new law to ban Americans from peeing in the ocean due to rising sea levels.
Opens the front door, "WHAT F'En Climate Emergency."
I've been doing that for the last 50-years.
It's absurd how many people have been brainwashed into thinking CO2 is the ONLY environmental concern.
Plastics ARE pollution themselves. I don't care that Glass or Aluminum take more energy to transport and recycle. I am just thrilled that a glass bottle that ends up in the ocean becomes essentially a rock or sand eventually, not an organism clogging microplastic.
Aluminum strewn about is also less of a problem, because it is valuable enough that people collect it and turn it in for $$$ when it is recycled.
Both are far more sustainable than our plastic problem. Especially when they use cleaner forms of energy to recycle them.
And your evidence for the dangers of micro-plastics is ... what, exactly?
The same thing that makes plastic basically inert in a landfill makes them mostly inert in oceans and even organisms. They don't "clog" organisms any more than the entirely natural sand, dirt and grit that's already in the environment.
Xenon is "inert", too, but it is actually used as an anesthetic. When things get small enough, you start to have chemical effects even if you're not forming chemical bonds. Nano-sized hydrophobic objects get stuck in cell membranes, for instance. Inert microscopic objects can get taken up by cellular "garbage collectors" called lysomes, and if the enzymes in them can't attack the object, they just accumulate literally clogging up the cell.
^Diagnosed with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD).
In reality; The mental disease is more of a plague than the nano-sized hydrophobic objects.
I wonder if Gov-Guns against those 'icky' people can cure OCD patients like it changes the weather. /s
You could dump every single plastic bottle, glass container, and aluminum can on Earth into the ocean right now, and the Earth wouldn’t even notice.
You could burn them all at once in a gigantic inferno, and it would pale in comparison to a volcano’s hiccup.
This kind of high-strung virtue-signal environmentalism is Clown World. Period.
I care significantly less about plastic's effect on the planet than I do on human reproductive decline.
WELL SAID +10000000000.
Maybe the virtue-signalling environmentalists would like to start a story about how the Dinosaurs and every living organism polluted their planet by yielding tons upon tons of fossil fuels too; let alone all that CO2 their living bodies put out by living.
What strikes me is the ostensible focus on single use plastic and the plastic pollution such as some Pacific garbage patch. They make up a fraction of primary plastics, and helping poor countries get basic waste management right and someone to tug away the garbage patch away should fix those easily.
I just read that promising ideas like plastic roads, potentially better in many ways including total cost of ownership, allow for reusing almost all plastic waste without the sorting, waste, and supply exceeding demand effects that now hobble recycling, creating commercial incentives.
But most plastics are used for, well, pretty much everything we build and produce. Surely beyond plastics does not apply there, except where innovation finds better alternatives. Just like beyond oil does not mean destroying an agricultural system feeding 8 billion people and has almost stamped out famine.